The history of ancient Rus' in brief. How they lived in Rus' before the arrival of Christians or why the history of Rus' before baptism was a big headache for Soviet historians
I understand that such an article can break the fan, so I will try to avoid sharp corners. I am writing more for my own pleasure, most of the facts will be from the category taught at school, but nevertheless I will gladly accept criticism and corrections, if there are facts. So:
Ancient Rus'.
It is assumed that Rus' appeared as a result of the merger of a number of East Slavic, Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes. The first mentions of us are found in the 830s. Firstly, in the area of 813. (very controversial dating) some Rosas successfully raided the city of Amastris (modern Amasra, Turkey) in Byzantine Palphagonia. Secondly, the ambassadors of the “Kagan Rosov” as part of the Byzantine embassy came to the last emperor of the Frankish state, Louis I the Pious (a good question, however, is who they really were). Thirdly, the same Dews ran in 860, already to Constantinople, without much success (there is an assumption that the famous Askold and Dir commanded the parade).
The history of serious Russian statehood begins, according to the most official version, in 862, when a certain Rurik appeared on the scene.
Rurik.
In fact, we have a pretty bad idea of who it was or whether there was one at all. The official version is based on the “Tale of Bygone Years” by Nestor, who, in turn, used the sources available to him. There is a theory (quite similar to the truth) that Rurik was known as Rurik of Jutland, from the Skjoldung dynasty (a descendant of Skjold, the king of the Danes, mentioned already in Beowulf). I repeat that the theory is not the only one.
Where this character came from in Rus' (specifically, in Novgorod) is also an interesting question. Personally, the closest theory to me is that he was originally a hired military administrator, moreover in Ladoga, and brought the idea of hereditary transfer of power with him from Scandinavia, where it was just coming into fashion. And he came to power entirely by seizing it during a conflict with another similar military leader.
However, in the PVL it is written that the Varangians were nevertheless called upon by three tribes of Slavs, unable to resolve controversial issues themselves. Where did this come from?
Option one- from the source that Nestor read (well, you understand, there would be enough people from among the Rurikovichs who wanted to do exciting editing in their spare time. Princess Olga could also have done this, in the midst of a conflict with the Drevlyans, who for some reason had not yet realized that they would break the prince in half and offer a replacement, as has always been done in such cases in their memory - a bad idea).
Option two- Nestor could have been asked to write this by Vladimir Monomakh, who was actually called by the people of Kiev, and who really did not want to prove with his fingers the legitimacy of his reign to everyone who was older than him in the family. In any case, somewhere from Rurik a reliably known idea of a Slavic state appears. “Somewhere” because the real steps in building such a state were taken not by Rurik, but by his successor, Oleg.
Oleg.
Called "the prophetic", Oleg took the reins of Novgorod Rus in 879. Probably (according to PVL), he was a relative of Rurik (possibly brother-in-law). Some identify Oleg with Odd Orvar (Arrow), the hero of several Scandinavian sagas.
The same PVL claims that Oleg was the guardian of the real heir, Rurik’s son Igor, something like a regent. In general, in an amicable way, power among the Rurikovichs for a very long time was transferred to the “eldest in the family,” so Oleg could be a full-fledged ruler not only in practice, but also formally.
Actually, what Oleg did during his reign - he made Rus'. In 882 he gathered an army and in turn subjugated Smolensk, Lyubech and Kyiv. Based on the history of the capture of Kyiv, we, as a rule, remember Askold and Dir (I won’t say for Dir, but the name “Askold” seems very Scandinavian to me. I won’t lie). PVL believes that they were Varangians, but had no relation to Rurik (I believe, because I heard somewhere that not only did they have - Rurik at one time sent them along the Dnieper with the task “capture everything that is worth little "). The chronicles also describe how Oleg defeated his compatriots - he hid military paraphernalia from the boats, so that they looked like merchant ships, and somehow lured both governors there (according to the official version from the Nikon Chronicle - he let them know that he was there ... but said he was sick, and on the ships he showed them young Igor and killed them. But perhaps they were simply inspecting the incoming merchants, not suspecting that an ambush awaited them on board).
Having seized power in Kyiv, Oleg appreciated the convenience of its location in relation to the eastern and southern (as far as I understand) lands compared to Novgorod and Ladoga, and said that his capital would be here. He spent the next 25 years “swearing in” the surrounding Slavic tribes, capturing some of them (the northerners and Radimichi) from the Khazars.
In 907 Oleg undertakes a military campaign against Byzantium. When 200 (according to PVL) boats with 40 soldiers on board each appeared in sight of Constantinople, Emperor Leo IV the Philosopher ordered the city’s harbor to be blocked with tensioned chains - perhaps in the hope that the savages would be satisfied with plundering the suburbs and go home. "Savage" Oleg showed ingenuity and put the ships on wheels. The infantry, under the cover of sailing tanks, caused confusion within the city walls, and Leo IV hastily ransomed. According to the legend, at the same time an attempt was made to slip wine with hemlock to the prince during the negotiations, but Oleg somehow sensed the moment and pretended to be a teetotaler (for which, in fact, he was called “Prophetic” upon his return). The ransom was a lot of money, tribute and an agreement according to which our merchants were exempt from taxes and had the right to live in Constantinople for up to a year at the expense of the crown. In 911, however, the agreement was re-signed without exempting merchants from duties.
Some historians, having not found a description of the campaign in Byzantine sources, consider it a legend, but recognize the existence of the treaty of 911 (perhaps there was a campaign, otherwise why would the Eastern Romans bend so much, but without the episode with the “tanks” and Constantinople).
Oleg left the stage due to his death in 912. Why and where exactly is a very good question, the legend tells about a horse’s skull and a poisonous snake (interestingly, the same thing happened with the legendary Odd Orvar). The circular ladles hissed, foaming, Oleg left, but Rus' remained.
Generally speaking, this article should be brief, so I will try to briefly summarize my thoughts below.
Igor (reigned 912-945). The son of Rurik, took over the rule of Kiev after Oleg (Igor was governor of Kyiv during the war with Byzantium in 907). He conquered the Drevlyans, tried to fight with Byzantium (however, the memory of Oleg was enough, the war did not work out), concluded with her in 943 or 944 an agreement similar to the one that Oleg concluded (but less profitable), and in 945 he unsuccessfully went for the second time take tribute from the same Drevlyans (there is an opinion that Igor perfectly understood how all this could end, but could not cope with his own squad, which at that time was not particularly surprising). Husband of Princess Olga, father of the future Prince Svyatoslav.
Olga (reigned 945-964)- Igor's widow. She burned the Drevlyan Iskorosten, thereby demonstrating the sacralization of the figure of the prince (the Drevlyans offered her to marry their own prince Mal, and 50 years before that it seriously could have worked). She carried out the first positive taxation reform in the history of Rus', establishing specific deadlines for collecting tribute (lessons) and creating fortified courtyards for its reception and housing for collectors (cemeteries). She laid the foundation for stone construction in Rus'.
What’s interesting is that from the point of view of our chronicles, Olga never officially ruled; from the moment of Igor’s death, his son, Svyatoslav, ruled.
The Byzantines were not put off by such subtleties, and in their sources Olga is mentioned as the archontissa (ruler) of Rus'.
Svyatoslav (964 - 972) Igorevich. Generally speaking, 964 is rather the year of the beginning of his independent rule, since formally he was considered the Prince of Kyiv from 945. But in practice, until 969, his mother, Princess Olga, ruled for him, until the prince got out of the saddle. From PVL “When Svyatoslav grew up and matured, he began to gather many brave warriors, and he was fast, like a pardus, and fought a lot. On campaigns, he did not carry carts or boilers with him, did not cook meat, but, thinly slicing horse meat, or an animal, or beef, and fried it on coals, and ate it like that; he did not have a tent, but slept, spreading a sweatcloth with a saddle on his head - the same were all the rest of his warriors. And he sent (envoys) to other lands with the words: . .. I’m coming at you!” In fact, he destroyed the Khazar Khaganate (to the joy of Byzantium), imposed tribute on the Vyatichi (to his own joy), conquered the First Bulgarian Kingdom on the Danube, built Pereyaslavets on the Danube (where he wanted to move the capital), frightened the Pechenegs and, on the basis of the Bulgarians, quarreled with Byzantium; the Bulgarians fought against on the side of Rus' - the vicissitudes of wars). In the spring of 970, he put up a free army of 30,000 people from his own, Bulgarians, Pechenegs and Hungarians against Byzantium, but lost (possibly) the battle of Arcadiopolis, and, taking a retreat, left the territory of Byzantium. In 971, the Byzantines already laid siege to Dorostol, where Svyatoslav set up his headquarters, and after a three-month siege and another battle, they convinced Svyatoslav to take another compensation and go home. Svyatoslav did not make it home - first being stuck in the winter at the mouth of the Dnieper, and then running into the Pecheneg prince Kurya, in a battle with whom he died. Byzantium ended up with Bulgaria as a province and minus one dangerous rival, so it seems to me that Kurya stuck around on the doorsteps all winter for a reason. However, there is no evidence of this.
By the way. Svyatoslav was never baptized, despite repeated proposals and the possible breakdown of the engagement with the Byzantine princess - he himself explained this by saying that the squad would not specifically understand such a maneuver, which he could not allow.
The first prince to distribute reigns to more than one son. Perhaps this led to the first strife in Rus', when, after the death of their father, the sons fought for the Kiev throne.
Yaropolk (972-978) and Oleg (prince of the Drevlyans 970-977) Svyatoslavichs- two of the three sons of Svyatoslav. Legitimate sons, unlike Vladimir, the son of Svyatoslav and the housekeeper Malusha (however, it is still a good question how such a small thing played a role in Rus' in the mid-10th century. There is also an opinion that Malusha is the daughter of the same Drevlyan prince Mal who executed Igor) .
Yaropolk had diplomatic relations with the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. In 977, during a strife, speaking against his brothers, he attacked Oleg’s possessions in the land of the Drevlyans. Oleg died during the retreat (if you believe the chronicle, Yaropolk lamented). In fact, after the death of Oleg and Vladimir’s flight somewhere “overseas”, he became the sole ruler of Rus'. In 980 Vladimir returned with a squad of Varangians, began to take the cities, Yaropolk left Kiev with the better fortified Roden, Vladimir besieged it, famine began in the city and Yaropolk was forced to negotiate. Instead of or in addition to Vladimir, two Varangians appeared on the spot and did their job.
Oleg is the prince of the Drevlyans, the first successor of Mal. Perhaps he accidentally started the strife by killing the son of governor Yaropolk, Sveneld, who was poaching on his land. Version from the chronicle. Personally, it seems to me (along with Wikipedia) that the brothers would have had enough motives even without their father-voivodes burning with a thirst for revenge. Also, perhaps, he laid the foundation for one of the noble families of Maravia - only the Czechs and only the 16th-17th centuries have evidence of this, so whether to believe it or not is up to the conscience of the reader.
Brief history of Rus'. How Rus' was created
14 ratings, Average rating: 4.4 out of 5The formation of the first state on the territory of Eastern Europe, which received the name Kievan Rus in the nineteenth century, had a strong influence on further course of the history of the region. Having existed for several centuries, going through periods of prosperity and decline, it disappeared, laying the foundation for the emergence in the future of several states that play an important role in modern times.
The emergence of the Eastern Slavs
The history of the formation of the Kyiv state can be conditionally divided into three stages:
- the emergence of tribal unions;
- the emergence of the ruling elite;
- the beginnings of statehood, Kyiv.
The origin of the term Kievan Rus dates back to the nineteenth century. This is what historians called Rus', denoting a huge state in Eastern Europe, which was succeeded by several modern countries.
There is no exact date for the creation of Rus'. The formation of the Kyiv state was preceded by several centuries of the formation of Slavic tribal unions on its territory on the basis of the gradually disintegrating Slavic ethnic group. By the beginning of the eighth century, individual Slavic tribes created seven tribal unions here. On the lands of the glades, one of these unions located along the middle reaches of the Dnieper, the birth of the state of Kievan Rus took place.
The formation of military-tribal alliances was accompanied by the collapse of primitive democracy within the tribes, when a ruling military elite emerged, princes and their warriors, who appropriated most of the military spoils. The formation of the ruling stratum contributed to the emergence of the rudiments of the state. Large settlements began to emerge in the places of future key cities of ancient Rus'. Their number included ancient Russian Kyiv, which arose in the sixth century, the first ruler of which is considered to be the prince of the Polyans, Kiy. This process especially intensified at the turn of the eighth and ninth centuries.
Formation of Kyiv statehood
The history of Kievan Rus as a state entity began in the 9th century, when tribal unions began to fight among themselves for leadership in the region. As a result, during the 9th and 10th centuries, a military-trading association of tribal alliances was first formed, which gradually grew into the Kiev state.
The reign of Rurik in Novgorod
The gradual transition of tribal relations within tribes to feudal ones also required new methods of management. New social relations required other, more centralized forms of power that would be able to maintain the changing balance of interests. The most famous result of such a search was, according to the Tale of Bygone Years, the calling in 862 to the princely throne of Novgorod, at that time the most developed city of the future Rus', of the Norman king Rurik, who was the founder of the future dynasty of Kyiv princes.
Having gained a foothold on the Novgorod table, Rurik, with the help of the warriors Askold and Dir, seizes power in Kyiv, which was an important trading point on the route “from the Varangians to the Greeks.” After the death of Rurik, his governor Oleg, having killed Askold and Dir, declares himself Grand Duke of Kyiv, making Kyiv the center of the united northern and southern Slavic lands. He made many military campaigns, including two against Byzantium, which resulted in the conclusion of trade and political treaties in 907 and 911 that were beneficial for Rus'. And also the result of the wars carried out by Oleg, nicknamed the Prophetic, was an almost doubling of the country’s territory.
Reign of Igor, Olga and Svyatoslav
Rurik's son Igor, nicknamed the Old, since he received power late, took the grand-ducal throne after Oleg's death in 912. His reign was less successful than that of his predecessor. An attempt in alliance with Byzantium to defeat the Khazar Khaganate ended in defeat, which turned into an unsuccessful military conflict with the former ally. The result of the next campaign in 944 against Byzantium was the signing of a new treaty, less beneficial for Rus', reintroducing trade tariffs.
Igor the Old was killed by the Drevlyans while collecting tribute from them in 945, leaving behind his young son Svyatoslav. As a result, his widow, Princess Olga, received real power in the principality.
Olga streamlined many laws of the Old Russian land, including carrying out a tax reform, the impetus for which was the uprising of the Drevlyans. Polyudye was abolished and clear tribute amounts and “lessons” were established. The tribute had to be delivered to special fortresses called “cemeteries” and received by administrators appointed by the prince. Such tribute and the procedure for receiving it were called “carriage”. Having paid the tribute, the payer received a clay seal with the sign of the prince, which guaranteed against paying the tax again.
Princess Olga's reforms contributed to strengthening the power of the Kyiv princes, its centralization, and reducing the independence of the tribes.
In 962, Olga transferred power to her son Svyatoslav. The reign of Svyatoslav was not marked by noticeable reforms; the prince himself, being primarily a born warrior, preferred military campaigns to state activities. First, he subjugated the Vyatichi tribe, incorporating it into the Russian land, and in 965 he led a successful campaign against the Khazar state.
The defeat of the Khazar Kaganate opened up for Rus' trade route to the east, and two subsequent Bulgarian campaigns provided the Old Russian state with dominance over the entire northern coast of the Black Sea. Rus' advanced its borders to the south, establishing itself in Tmutarakan. Svyatoslav himself was going to found his own state on the Danube, but was killed by the Pechenegs, returning from an unsuccessful campaign against Byzantium in 872.
Board of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich
The sudden death of Svyatoslav caused an internecine struggle in Rus' between his sons for the Kiev table. Yaropolk, who by seniority had the original right to the grand-ducal throne, first defended it in the fight against Oleg, who reigned among the Drevlyans, who died in 977. Vladimir, who ruled in Novgorod, fled beyond the borders of Rus', but later returned with a Varangian squad in 980 and, having killed Yaropolk, took the place of the Kyiv prince.
Reign of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, later called the Great or the Baptist, marked the formation of Rus' as a state. Under him, the boundaries of the territory of the Old Russian state were finally determined, Cherven and Carpathian Rus' were annexed. The increasing threat of Pecheneg attacks forced him to create a border defensive line of fortresses, the garrisons of which consisted of selected warriors. But the main event of the reign of Vladimir the Baptist is the adoption by Russia of Orthodox Christianity as the official state religion.
The reason for adopting a religion professing belief in one God was purely practical. The feudal society with its monarchical form of government, which was finally formed by the end of the tenth century, was no longer satisfied with a religion based on polytheism. Religious beliefs in the Middle Ages formed the basis of a person’s worldview and were the state ideology of any country. Therefore, paganism, which reflected primitive tribalism, has become obsolete. There was a need to replace the old religion with a monotheistic one, more suitable for monarchical feudal state.
Prince Vladimir the Great did not immediately decide which of the then dominant religious beliefs to accept as the basis of the ideology of the state. According to the chronicles, Islam, Judaism, Catholicism could have established themselves in Rus'... But the choice fell on Byzantine-style Orthodoxy. Both the prince’s personal preferences and political expediency played a role here.
Christianity became the official religion in Kievan Rus in 988.
The heyday of Kievan Rus
Historians conventionally divide the time before the reign of Prince Vladimir Monomakh into several stages.
- Svyatopolk and Yaroslav.
- Eleventh century. Triumvirate of Yaroslavichs.
- Kievan Rus. 12th century. Vladimir Monomakh.
Each stage is distinguished by events important for the development and formation of statehood.
Rivalry between Svyatopolk and Yaroslav
Vladimir the Baptist died in 1015, immediately a new internecine struggle for power between his sons began in the country. Svyatopolk the Accursed kills his brothers Boris and Gleb, later canonized, and seizes the Kiev table. After which he enters into a fight with Yaroslav, who ruled in Novgorod.
The struggle goes on with varying success for several years and almost ends with the complete victory of Svyatopolk-Yaroslav, who, once again expelled from Kyiv, refuses further struggle and is going to flee “overseas.” But at the insistence of the Novgorodians, for the money they collected, he again recruits a mercenary army and finally expels Svyatopolk, who later went missing “between the Czechs and the Poles,” from Kyiv
After the elimination of Svyatopolk in 1019, Yaroslav's struggle for power was not over. First, after a year and a half, there was a battle with his nephew, the Polotsk prince Bryachislav, who plundered Novgorod. Later he entered into battle with the prince of Tmutarakan Mstislav. While Yaroslav in the north suppressed the uprising of pagan tribes, Mstislav tried unsuccessfully to capture Kyiv, after which he stopped in Chernigov. The battle that took place later on the banks of the Dnieper with Yaroslav arriving in time ended for the latter with a crushing defeat and flight.
Despite the victory, Mstislav did not have the strength to fight further, so he initiated the signing of a peace treaty that divided Rus' along the Dnieper between the two capitals, Kiev and Chernigov, in 1026. The agreement turned out to be strong, the “duumvirate” of the brothers lasted successfully until 1036, when, after the death of left no heirs Mstislav, his lands came into the possession of the Kyiv prince. Thus, Yaroslav completed a new “gathering of lands” of the former possessions of Vladimir the Great.
During the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, Rus' reached its peak. The Pechenegs were defeated. Rus' was recognized as an influential state in Europe, as evidenced by numerous dynastic marriages. A collection of laws “Russian Truth” was written, the first stone architectural monuments were built, and the level of literacy rose sharply. The geography of trade expanded, which was carried out with many countries from Central Asia to Western Europe.
After Yaroslav's death in 1054, power was shared by his three eldest sons, who ruled in Kyiv, Chernigov and Pereyaslav. At this time there were a number of Russian-Polovtsian wars, unsuccessful for the Russian princes. The congress held in Lyubech in 1097, dividing the Rurikovichs into separate dynasties, stimulated further feudal fragmentation, while simultaneously stopping strife to fight the Polovtsians.
Vladimir Monomakh and Mstislav Vladimirovich
In 1113, the Kiev period of the reign of Vladimir Monomakh began. Being a subtle politician, with the help of compromises he managed to stop the inevitable disintegration of the state into separate principalities during his reign. Having complete control over the country's military forces, he managed to achieve the obedience of his willful vassals and, for some time, eliminate the danger of a Polovtsian invasion.
After Monomakh's death in 1125, his son Mstislav continued his father's policies. The years of the reign of Mstislav the Great were the last when Rus' still remained united.
Disappearance of the State
The death of Mstislav in 1132 marked the end of the era of the ancient Russian state. Having broken up into a dozen virtually independent principalities, it finally ceased to exist as an integral state entity. At the same time, Kyiv still continued to represent for some time a symbol of the prestige of the princely power, gradually losing real influence. But even in this capacity, Ancient Rus' only had a century left to exist. The invasion of the Mongols in the middle of the thirteenth century led to the loss of independence of the ancient Russian lands for several centuries.
6 250
The chronicle of the ancient Slavic state was almost forgotten thanks to the German professors who wrote Russian history and set as their goal to rejuvenate the history of Rus', to show that the Slavic peoples were supposedly pristine, not stained by the actions of the Russians, Antes, barbarians, Vandals and Scythians, whom the whole world remembered very well . The goal is to tear Rus' away from the Scythian past. Based on the work of German professors, a domestic historical school arose. All history textbooks teach us that before baptism, wild tribes lived in Rus' - pagans.
This is a big Lie, because history has been rewritten many times to please the existing ruling system - starting with the first Romanovs, i.e. history is interpreted as beneficial to this moment the ruling class. Among the Slavs, their past is called Heritage or Chronicle, and not History (the word “Summer” preceded the concept of “year” introduced by Peter the Great in 7208 from S.M.Z.H., when instead of the Slavic chronology they introduced 1700 from the supposed Nativity of Christ). S.M.Z.H. - this is the Creation / signing / of Peace with the Arim / Chinese / in the summer called the Star Temple - after the end of the Great World War (something like May 9, 1945, but more significant for the Slavs).
Therefore, is it worth trusting textbooks that, even in our memory, have been rewritten more than once? And is it worth trusting textbooks that contradict many facts that say that before baptism, in Rus' there was a huge state with many cities and villages (Country of Cities), a developed economy and crafts, with its own unique Culture (Culture = Kultura = Cult of Ra = Cult of Light). Our ancestors who lived in those days had a vital Wisdom and worldview that helped them always act according to their Conscience and live in harmony with the world around them. This attitude to the World is now called the Old Faith (“old” means “pre-Christian”, but previously it was called simply – Faith – Knowledge of Ra – Knowledge of Light – Knowledge of the Shining Truth of the Almighty). Faith is primary, and Religion (for example, Christian) is secondary. The word “Religion” comes from “Re” - repetition, “League” - connection, unification. Faith is always one (there is either a connection with God or there is not), and there are many religions - as many as there are Gods among the people or as many ways as intermediaries (popes, patriarchs, priests, rabbis, mullahs, etc.) come up with to establish connection with them.
Since the connection with God, established through third parties - intermediaries, for example, priests, is artificial, then, in order not to lose the flock, each religion claims to be “Truth in the first instance.” Because of this, many bloody religious wars have been and are being waged.
Mikhailo Vasilyevich Lomonosov fought alone against the German professorship, arguing that the history of the Slavs goes back to ancient times.
The ancient Slavic state RUSKOLAN occupied lands from the Danube and the Carpathians to the Crimea, the North Caucasus and the Volga, and the subject lands captured the Trans-Volga and South Ural steppes.
The Scandinavian name for Rus' sounds like Gardarika - a country of cities. Arab historians also write about the same thing, numbering Russian cities in the hundreds. At the same time, claiming that in Byzantium there are only five cities, the rest are “fortified fortresses.” In ancient documents, the state of the Slavs is referred to as Scythia and Ruskolan. In his works, Academician B.A. Rybakov, the author of the books “Paganism of the Ancient Slavs” 1981, “Paganism of Ancient Rus'” 1987, and many others, writes that the state of Ruskolan was the bearer of the Chernyakhov archaeological culture and experienced a heyday in the Trojan centuries (I-IV centuries AD. ). To show the level of scientists who studied ancient Slavic history, let us cite who Academician B.A. was. Rybakov.
Boris Aleksandrovich Rybakov headed the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences for 40 years, was director of the Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, academician-secretary of the Department of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, honorary member of the Czechoslovak, Polish and Bulgarian Academies of Sciences, emeritus professor of Moscow University. M. V. Lomonosov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Honorary Doctor of the Krakow Jagiellonian University.
The word “Ruskolan” has the syllable “lan”, which is present in the words “hand”, “valley” and means: space, territory, place, region. Subsequently, the syllable “lan” was transformed into the European land - country. Sergei Lesnoy in his book “Where are you from, Rus'?” says the following: “With regard to the word “Ruskolun”, it should be noted that there is also a variant “Ruskolan”. If the latter option is more correct, then the word can be understood differently: “Russian doe.” Lan - field. The whole expression: “Russian field.” In addition, Lesnoy makes the assumption that there was a word “cleaver”, which probably meant some kind of space. It is also found in other verbal environments. Historians and linguists also believe that the name of the state “Ruskolan” could come from two words “Rus” and “Alan” after the names of the Rus and Alans who lived in a single state.
Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov had the same opinion, who wrote:
“The same tribe of Alans and Roxolans is clear from many places of ancient historians and geographers, and the difference is that Alans are the common name of an entire people, and Roxolans are a word derived from their place of residence, which, not without reason, is derived from the River Ra, as among ancient writers is known as Volga (VolGa).”
The ancient historian and scientist Pliny places the Alans and Roxolans together. Roksolane, by the ancient scientist and geographer Ptolemy, is called Alanorsi by figurative addition. The names Aorsi and Roxane or Rossane from Strabo - “the exact unity of the Rosses and Alans asserts, to which the reliability is increased, that they were both of the Slavic generation, then that the Sarmatians were of the same tribe from ancient writers and are therefore attested to have the same roots with the Varangian-Russians.”
Let us also note that Lomonosov also refers to the Varangians as Russians, which once again shows the fraud of the German professors, who deliberately called the Varangians a stranger, and not a Slavic people. This manipulation and the birth of a legend about the calling of a foreign tribe to reign in Rus' had a political background so that once again the “enlightened” West could point out to the “wild” Slavs their denseness, and that it was thanks to the Europeans that the Slavic state was created. Modern historians, in addition to adherents of the Norman theory, also agree that the Varangians are precisely a Slavic tribe.
Lomonosov writes:
“According to Helmold’s testimony, the Alans were mixed with the Kurlanders, the same tribe of the Varangian-Russians.”
Lomonosov writes - Varangians-Russians, and not Varangians-Scandinavians, or Varangians-Goths. In all documents of the pre-Christian period, the Varangians were classified as Slavs.
Lomonosov further writes:
“The Rugen Slavs were called for short the Ranas, that is, from the Ra (Volga) River, and the Rossans. This will be more clearly demonstrated by their resettlement to the Varangian shores. Weissel from Bohemia suggests that the Amakosovians, Alans, and Wends came from the east to Prussia.”
Lomonosov writes about the Rugen Slavs. It is known that on the island of Rügen in the city of Arkona there was the last Slavic pagan temple, destroyed in 1168. Now there is a Slavic museum there.
Lomonosov writes that it was from the east that Slavic tribes came to Prussia and the island of Rügen and adds:
“Such a resettlement of the Volga Alans, that is, Rossans or Rosses, to the Baltic Sea took place, as can be seen from the evidence given above by the authors, not just once and not in a short time, as is clear from the traces that have remained to this day, with which the names of cities and rivers are honored must"
But let's return to the Slavic state.
The capital of Ruskolani, the city of Kiyar, was located in the Caucasus, in the Elbrus region near the modern villages of Upper Chegem and Bezengi. Sometimes it was also called Kiyar Antsky, named after the Slavic tribe of Ants. The results of the expeditions to the site of the ancient Slavic city will be written at the end. Descriptions of this Slavic city can be found in ancient documents.
“Avesta” in one place talks about the main city of the Scythians in the Caucasus, near one of the highest mountains in the world. And as you know, Elbrus is the highest mountain not only in the Caucasus, but also in Europe in general. “Rigveda” tells about the main city of the Rus, all on the same Elbrus.
Kiyara is mentioned in the Book of Veles. Judging by the text, Kiyar, or the city of Kiya the Old, was founded 1300 years before the fall of Ruskolani (368 AD), i.e. in the 9th century BC.
The ancient Greek geographer Strabo, who lived in the 1st century. BC. - early 1st century AD writes about the Temple of the Sun and the sanctuary of the Golden Fleece in the sacred city of the Russians, in the Elbrus region, on the top of Mount Tuzuluk.
Our contemporaries discovered the foundation of an ancient structure on the mountain. Its height is about 40 meters, and the diameter of the base is 150 meters: the ratio is the same as that of the Egyptian pyramids and other religious buildings of antiquity. There are many obvious and not at all random patterns in the parameters of the mountain and the temple. The observatory-temple was created according to a “standard” design and, like other Cyclopean structures - Stonehenge and Arkaim - was intended for astrological observations.
In the legends of many peoples there is evidence of the construction on the sacred Mount Alatyr (modern name - Elbrus) of this majestic structure, revered by all ancient peoples. There are mentions of it in the national epic of the Greeks, Arabs, and European peoples. According to Zoroastrian legends, this temple was captured by Rus (Rustam) in Usenem (Kavi Useinas) in the second millennium BC. Archaeologists officially note at this time the emergence of the Koban culture in the Caucasus and the appearance of the Scythian-Sarmatian tribes.
The temple of the Sun is also mentioned by the geographer Strabo, placing in it the sanctuary of the Golden Fleece and the oracle of Eetus. There are detailed descriptions of this temple and evidence that astronomical observations were carried out there.
The Sun Temple was a veritable paleoastronomical observatory of antiquity. Priests who had certain knowledge created such observatory temples and studied stellar science. Not only dates for maintaining were calculated there Agriculture, but also, most importantly, the most important milestones in world and spiritual history were determined.
The Arab historian Al Masudi described the Temple of the Sun on Elbrus as follows: “In the Slavic regions there were buildings revered by them. Among the others they had a building on a mountain, about which philosophers wrote that it was one of the highest mountains in the world. There is a story about this building: about the quality of its construction, about the arrangement of its different stones and their different colors, about the holes made in the upper part of it, about what was built in these holes for observing the sunrise, about the precious stones placed there and the signs marked in it, which indicate future events and warn against incidents before their implementation, about the sounds heard in the upper part of it and about what befalls them when listening to these sounds.”
In addition to the above documents, information about the main ancient Slavic city, the Temple of the Sun and the Slavic state as a whole is in the Elder Edda, in Persian, Scandinavian and ancient Germanic sources, in the Book of Veles. If you believe the legends, near the city of Kiyar (Kiev) there was the sacred Mount Alatyr - archaeologists believe that it was Elbrus. Next to it was the Iriysky, or Garden of Eden, and the Smorodina River, which separated the earthly and afterlife worlds, and connected Yav and Nav (that Light) Kalinov Bridge.
This is how they talk about two wars between the Goths (an ancient Germanic tribe) and the Slavs, the invasion of the Goths into the ancient Slavic state by the Gothic historian of the 4th century Jordan in his book “The History of the Goths” and “The Book of Veles”. In the middle of the 4th century, the Gothic king Germanarech led his people to conquer the world. He was a great commander. According to Jordanes, he was compared to Alexander the Great. The same thing was written about Germanarakh and Lomonosov:
“Ermanaric, the Ostrogothic king, for his courage in conquering many northern peoples, was compared by some to Alexander the Great.”
Judging by the evidence of Jordan, the Elder Edda and the Book of Veles, Germanarekh, after long wars, captured almost all of Eastern Europe. He fought along the Volga to the Caspian Sea, then fought on the Terek River, crossed the Caucasus, then walked along the Black Sea coast and reached Azov.
According to the “Book of Veles,” Germanareh first made peace with the Slavs (“drank wine for friendship”), and only then “came against us with a sword.”
The peace treaty between the Slavs and Goths was sealed by the dynastic marriage of the sister of the Slavic prince-tsar Bus - Lebedi and Germanarekh. This was payment for peace, for Hermanarekh was many years old at that time (he died at 110 years old, the marriage was concluded shortly before that). According to Edda, Swan-Sva was wooed by the son of Germanarekh Randver, and he took her to his father. And then Earl Bikki, Germanareh's adviser, told them that it would be better if Randver got the Swan, since both of them were young, and Germanareh was an old man. These words pleased Swan-Sva and Randver, and Jordan adds that Swan-Sva fled from Germanarech. And then Germanareh executed his son and Swan. And this murder was the cause of the Slavic-Gothic War. Having treacherously violated the “peace treaty,” Germanarekh defeated the Slavs in the first battles. But then, when Germanarekh moved into the heart of Ruskolani, the Antes stood in the way of Germanarekh. Germanarekh was defeated. According to Jordan, he was struck in the side by the Rossomons (Ruskolans) - Sar (king) and Ammius (brother). The Slavic prince Bus and his brother Zlatogor inflicted a mortal wound on Germanarech, and he soon died. This is how Jordan, the Book of Veles, and later Lomonosov wrote about it.
“The Book of Veles”: “And Ruskolan was defeated by the Goths of Germanarakh. And he took a wife from our family and killed her. And then our leaders rushed against him and defeated Germanarekh.”
Jordan. “History is ready”: “The unfaithful family of Rosomons (Ruskolan) ... took advantage of the following opportunity... After all, after the king, driven by rage, ordered a certain woman named Sunhilda (Swan) from the named family to be torn apart for treacherously leaving her husband, tied to fierce horses and prompting the horses to run in different directions, her brothers Sar (King Bus) and Ammius (Zlat), avenging the death of their sister, struck Germanarech in the side with a sword.”
M. Lomonosov: “Sonilda, a noble Roksolan woman, Ermanarik ordered to be torn apart by horses because her husband ran away. Her brothers Sar and Ammius, avenging the death of their sister, pierced Yermanarik in the side; died of a wound at one hundred and ten years old"
A few years later, the descendant of Germanarech, Amal Vinitarius, invaded the lands of the Slavic tribe of Antes. In the first battle he was defeated, but then “began to act more decisively,” and the Goths, led by Amal Vinitar, defeated the Slavs. The Slavic prince Busa and 70 other princes were crucified by the Goths on crosses. This happened on the night of March 20-21, 368 AD. On the same night that Bus was crucified, a total lunar eclipse occurred. Also, a monstrous earthquake shook the earth (the entire Black Sea coast shook, there was destruction in Constantinople and Nicaea (ancient historians testify to this. Later, the Slavs gathered strength and defeated the Goths. But the former powerful Slavic state was no longer restored.
“The Book of Veles”: “And then Rus' was defeated again. And Busa and seventy other princes were crucified on crosses. And there was great turmoil in Rus' from Amal Vend. And then Sloven gathered Rus' and led it. And that time the Goths were defeated. And we did not allow the Sting to flow anywhere. And everything worked out. And our grandfather Dazhbog rejoiced and greeted the warriors - many of our fathers who won victories. And there were no troubles and many worries, and so the Gothic land became ours. And so it will remain until the end"
Jordan. “History of the Goths”: Amal Vinitarius... moved the army into the territory of the Antes. And when he came to them, he was defeated in the first skirmish, then he behaved more bravely and crucified their king named Boz with his sons and 70 noble people, so that the corpses of the hanged would double the fear of the conquered.”
Bulgarian chronicle “Baraj Tarikha”: “Once in the land of the Anchians, the Galidzians (Galicians) attacked Bus and killed him along with all 70 princes.”
The Slavic prince Busa and 70 Gothic princes were crucified in the eastern Carpathians at the sources of the Seret and Prut, on the current border of Wallachia and Transylvania. In those days, these lands belonged to Ruskolani, or Scythia. Much later, under the famous Vlad Dracula, it was at the site of Bus’s crucifixion that mass executions and crucifixions were held. The bodies of Bus and the rest of the princes were removed from the crosses on Friday and taken to the Elbrus region, to Etaka (a tributary of the Podkumka). According to Caucasian legend, the body of Bus and other princes was brought by eight pairs of oxen. Bus's wife ordered a mound to be built over their grave on the banks of the Etoko River (a tributary of Podkumka) and in order to perpetuate the memory of Bus, she ordered the Altud River to be renamed Baksan (Busa River).
Caucasian legend says:
“Baksan (Bus) was killed by the Gothic king with all his brothers and eighty noble Narts. Hearing this, the people gave in to despair: the men beat their chests, and the women tore out the hair on their heads, saying: “Dauov’s eight sons are killed, killed!”
Anyone who has carefully read “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” remembers that it mentions the long-gone Time of Busovo.
The year 368, the year of the crucifixion of Prince Bus, has an astrological meaning. According to Slavic astrology, this is a milestone. On the night of March 20-21, turn 368, the era of Aries ended and the era of Pisces began.
It was after the story of the crucifixion of Prince Bus, which became known in the ancient world, that the story of the crucifixion of Christ appeared (was stolen) in Christianity.
The canonical Gospels nowhere say that Christ was crucified on the cross. Instead of the word “cross” (kryst), the word “stavros” is used there, which means pillar, and it does not talk about crucifixion, but about pillaring. That is why there are no early Christian images of the crucifixion.
The Christian Acts of the Apostles 10:39 says that Christ was “hanged on a tree.” The plot with the crucifixion first appeared only 400 years later!!! years after the execution of Christ, translated from Greek. The question arises: why, if Christ was crucified and not hanged, did Christians write in their holy books for four hundred years that Christ was hanged? Somehow illogical! It was the Slavic-Scythian tradition that influenced the distortion of the original texts during translation, and then the iconography (for there are no early Christian images of crucifixions).
The meaning of the original Greek text was well known in Greece itself (Byzantium), but after the corresponding reforms were carried out in the modern Greek language, unlike the previous custom, the word “stavros” took on, in addition to the meaning of “pillar,” also the meaning of “cross.”
In addition to the direct source of execution - the canonical Gospels, others are also known. In the Jewish tradition, which is closest to the Christian one, the tradition of the hanging of Jesus is also affirmed. There is a Jewish “Tale of the Hanged Man” written in the first centuries of our era, which describes in detail the execution of Jesus by hanging. And in the Talmud there are two stories about the execution of Christ. According to the first, Jesus was stoned, not in Jerusalem, but in Lud. According to the second story, because Jesus was of royal descent, and stoning was also replaced by hanging. And this was the official version of Christians for 400 years!!!
Even throughout the Muslim world it is generally accepted that Christ was not crucified, but hanged. In the Koran, based on early Christian traditions, Christians are cursed who claim that Jesus was not hanged, but crucified, and who claim that Jesus was Allah (God) himself, and not a prophet and the Messiah, and also denies the crucifixion itself. Therefore, Muslims, while respecting Jesus, do not reject either the Ascension or the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ, but they reject the symbol of the cross, since they rely on early Christian texts that speak of hanging, not crucifixion.
Moreover, the natural phenomena described in the Bible simply could not have occurred in Jerusalem on the day of Christ’s crucifixion.
The Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Matthew say that Christ suffered passionate torment on the spring full moon from Holy Thursday to Good Friday, and that there was an eclipse from the sixth to the ninth hour. The event, which they call an “eclipse,” occurred at a time when, for objective astronomical reasons, it simply could not have happened. Christ was executed during the Jewish Passover, and it always falls on a full moon.
Firstly, there are no solar eclipses during a full moon. During a full moon, the Moon and the Sun are on opposite sides of the Earth, so the Moon cannot block the Earth's sunlight.
Secondly, solar eclipses, unlike lunar eclipses, do not last three hours, as is written about in the Bible. Maybe the Judeo-Christians meant a lunar eclipse, but the whole world did not understand them?...
But solar and lunar eclipses are very easy to calculate. Any astronomer will say that in the year of Christ’s execution and even in the years close to this event there were no lunar eclipses.
The nearest eclipse accurately indicates only one date - the night of March 20-21, 368 AD. This is an absolutely accurate astronomical calculation. Namely, on this night from Thursday to Friday, March 20/21, 368, Prince Bus and 70 other princes were crucified by the Goths. On the night of March 20-21, a total lunar eclipse occurred, which lasted from midnight until three o'clock on March 21, 368. This date was calculated by astronomers, including the director of the Pulkovo Observatory N. Morozov.
Why did Christians write from move 33 that Christ was hanged, and after move 368 they rewrote the “holy” scripture and began to claim that Christ was crucified? Obviously, the plot with the crucifixion seemed more interesting to them and they once again engaged in religious plagiarism - i.e. simply theft... This is where the information in the Bible came from that Christ was crucified, that he suffered torment from Thursday to Friday, that there was an eclipse. Having stolen the plot with the crucifixion, the Jewish Christians decided to provide the Bible with details of the execution of the Slavic prince, without thinking that people in the future would pay attention to the described natural phenomena, which could not have happened in the year of Christ’s execution in the place in which he was executed.
And this is far from the only example of theft of materials by Jewish Christians. Speaking about the Slavs, I remember the myth of Arius’s father, who received a covenant from Dazhbog on Alatyr Mountain (Elbrus), and in the Bible, Arius and Alatyr miraculously turned into Moses and Sinai...
Or the Judeo-Christian baptismal rite. The Christian rite of baptism is one third of the Slavic pagan rite, which included: naming, fire baptism and water bath. In Judeo-Christianity, only the water bath remained.
We can recall examples from other traditions. Mithra - born on December 25th!!! 600 years before the birth of Jesus!!! December 25th - to the day 600 years later, Jesus was born. Mithra was born of a virgin in a stable, a star rose, the Magi came!!! Everything is the same as with Christ, only 600 years earlier. The cult of Mithras included: baptism with water, holy water, belief in immortality, belief in Mithras as a savior god, the concepts of Heaven and Hell. Mithra died and was resurrected in order to become a mediator between God the Father and man! Plagiarism (theft) of Christians is 100%.
More examples. Immaculately conceived: Gautama Buddha - India 600 BC; Indra - Tibet 700 BC; Dionysus - Greece; Quirinus - Roman; Adonis - Babylon all in the period from 400-200 BC; Krishna - India 1200 BC; Zarathustra - 1500 BC. In a word, whoever read the originals knows where the Jewish Christians got the materials for their writings.
So modern neo-Christians, who are trying in vain to find some kind of mythical Russian roots in the native Jew Yeshua - Jesus and his mother, need to stop doing nonsense and start worshiping Bus, nicknamed - the Cross, i.e. The Bus of the Cross, or what would be completely clear to them - the Bus of Christ. After all, this is the real Hero from whom the Judeo-Christians copied their New Testament, and the one they invented - the Judeo-Christian Jesus Christ - turns out to be some kind of charlatan and rogue, to say the least... After all, the New Testament is just a romantic comedy in the spirit Jewish fiction, allegedly written by the so-called. “Apostle” Paul (in the world - Saul), and even then, it turns out, it was not written by him himself, but by unknown/!?/ disciples of disciples. Well, they had fun though...
But let's return to the Slavic chronicle. The discovery of an ancient Slavic city in the Caucasus no longer looks so surprising. In recent decades, several ancient Slavic cities have been discovered in Russia and Ukraine.
The most famous today is the famous Arkaim, whose age is more than 5000 thousand years.
In 1987, in the Southern Urals in the Chelyabinsk region, during the construction of a hydroelectric power station, a fortified settlement of the early urban type, dating back to the Bronze Age, was discovered. to the times of the ancient Aryans. Arkaim is five hundred to six hundred years older than the famous Troy, even older than the Egyptian pyramids.
The discovered settlement is an observatory city. During its study, it was established that the monument was a city fortified by two wall circles inscribed within each other, ramparts and ditches. The dwellings in it were trapezoidal in shape, closely adjacent to each other and located in a circle in such a way that the wide end wall of each dwelling was part of the defensive wall. Every home has a bronze casting stove! But according to traditional academic knowledge, bronze came to Greece only in the second millennium BC. Later, the settlement turned out to be an integral part of the ancient Aryan civilization - the “Country of Cities” of the Southern Trans-Urals. Scientists have discovered a whole complex of monuments belonging to this amazing culture.
Despite their small size, fortified centers can be called proto-cities. The use of the concept “city” to fortified settlements of the Arkaim-Sintashta type is, of course, conditional. However, they cannot be called simply settlements, since the Arkaim “cities” are distinguished by powerful defensive structures, monumental architecture, and complex communication systems. The entire territory of the fortified center is extremely rich in planning details; it is very compact and carefully thought out. From the point of view of the organization of space, what we have in front of us is not even a city, but a kind of super-city.
The fortified centers of the Southern Urals are five to six centuries older than Homeric Troy. They are contemporaries of the first dynasty of Babylon, the pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt and the Cretan-Mycenaean culture of the Mediterranean. The time of their existence corresponds to the last centuries of the famous civilization of India - Mahenjo-Daro and Harappa.
In Ukraine, in Tripoli, the remains of a city were discovered, the same age as Arkaim, more than five thousand years. It is five hundred years older than the civilization of Mesopotamia - Sumerian!
At the end of the 90s, not far from Rostov-on-Don in the town of Tanais, settlement cities were found, the age of which even scientists find it difficult to name... The age varies from ten to thirty thousand years. The traveler of the last century, Thor Heyerdahl, believed that from there, from Tanais, the entire pantheon of Scandinavian Gods, led by Odin, came to Scandinavia.
On the Kola Peninsula, slabs with inscriptions in Sanskrit that are 20,000 years old have been found. And only Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, as well as the Baltic languages coincide with Sanskrit. Draw conclusions.
The results of the expedition to the site of the capital of the ancient Slavic city of Kiyara in the Elbrus region.
Five expeditions were carried out: in 1851,1881,1914, 2001 and 2002.
In 2001, the expedition was headed by A. Alekseev, and in 2002 the expedition was carried out under the patronage of the State Astronomical Institute named after Shtenberg (SAI), which was supervised by the director of the institute, Anatoly Mikhailovich Cherepashchuk.
Based on the data obtained as a result of topographic and geodetic studies of the area, recording astronomical events, the expedition members made preliminary conclusions that are fully consistent with the results of the 2001 expedition, based on the results of which, in March 2002, a report was made at a meeting of the Astronomical Society at the State Astronomical Institute Institute in the presence of employees of the Institute of Archeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, members of the International Astronomical Society and the State Historical Museum.
A report was also made at a conference on the problems of early civilizations in St. Petersburg.
What exactly did the researchers find?
Near Mount Karakaya, in the Rocky Range at an altitude of 3,646 meters above sea level between the villages of Upper Chegem and Bezengi on the eastern side of Elbrus, traces of the capital of Ruskolani, the city of Kiyar, were found, which existed long before the birth of Christ, which is mentioned in many legends and epics of different peoples of the world, as well as the oldest astronomical observatory - the Temple of the Sun, described by the ancient historian Al Masudi in his books precisely as the Temple of the Sun.
The location of the found city exactly coincides with the instructions from ancient sources, and later the location of the city was confirmed by the 17th century Turkish traveler Evliya Celebi.
The remains of an ancient temple, caves and graves were discovered on Mount Karakaya. An incredible number of ancient settlements and temple ruins have been discovered, many of which are quite well preserved. In the valley near the foot of Mount Karakaya, on the Bechesyn plateau, menhirs were found - tall man-made stones similar to wooden pagan idols.
On one of the stone pillars the face of a knight is carved, looking straight to the east. And behind the menhir you can see a bell-shaped hill. This is Tuzuluk (“Treasury of the Sun”). At its top you can actually see the ruins of the ancient sanctuary of the Sun. At the top of the hill there is a tour marking the highest point. Then three large rocks, hand-cut. Once upon a time, a slit was cut in them, directed from north to south. Stones were also found laid out like sectors in the zodiac calendar. Each sector is exactly 30 degrees.
Each part of the temple complex was intended for calendar and astrological calculations. In this, it is similar to the South Ural city-temple of Arkaim, which has the same zodiac structure, the same division into 12 sectors. It is also similar to Stonehenge in Great Britain. It is similar to Stonehenge, firstly, by the fact that the axis of the temple is also oriented from north to south, and secondly, one of the most important distinguishing features of Stonehenge is the presence of the so-called “Heel Stone” at a distance from the sanctuary. But there is also a menhir landmark at the Sun Sanctuary on Tuzuluk.
There is evidence that at the turn of our era the temple was plundered by the Bosporan king Pharnaces. The temple was finally destroyed in IV AD. Goths and Huns. Even the dimensions of the temple are known; 60 cubits (about 20 meters) in length, 20 (6-8 meters) in width and 15 (up to 10 meters) in height, as well as the number of windows and doors - 12 according to the number of Zodiac signs.
As a result of the work of the first expedition, there is every reason to believe that the stones on the top of Mount Tuzluk served as the foundation of the Sun Temple. Mount Tuzluk is a regular grassy cone about 40 meters high. The slopes rise to the top at an angle of 45 degrees, which actually corresponds to the latitude of the place, and, therefore, looking along it you can see the North Star. The axis of the temple foundation is 30 degrees with the direction to the Eastern peak of Elbrus. The same 30 degrees is the distance between the axis of the temple and the direction to the menhir, and the direction to the menhir and the Shaukam pass. Considering that 30 degrees - 1/12 of a circle - corresponds to a calendar month, this is not a coincidence. The azimuths of sunrise and sunset on the days of the summer and winter solstice differ by only 1.5 degrees from the directions to the peaks of Kanjal, the “gate” of two hills in the depths of pastures, Mount Dzhaurgen and Mount Tashly-Syrt. There is an assumption that the menhir served as a heel stone in the Temple of the Sun, similar to Stonehenge, and helped predict solar and lunar eclipses. Thus, Mount Tuzluk is tied to four natural landmarks along the Sun and is tied to the Eastern peak of Elbrus. The height of the mountain is only about 40 meters, the diameter of the base is about 150 meters. These are dimensions comparable to the dimensions of the Egyptian pyramids and other religious buildings.
In addition, two square tower-shaped aurochs were discovered at the Kayaeshik pass. One of them lies strictly on the axis of the temple. Here, on the pass, are the foundations of buildings and ramparts.
In addition, in the central part of the Caucasus, at the northern foot of Elbrus, in the late 70s and early 80s of the 20th century, an ancient center of metallurgical production, the remains of smelting furnaces, settlements, and burial grounds were discovered.
Summarizing the results of the work of the expeditions of the 1980s and 2001, which discovered the concentration within a radius of several kilometers of traces of ancient metallurgy, deposits of coal, silver, iron, as well as astronomical, religious and other archaeological objects, we can confidently assume the discovery of one of the most ancient cultural and administrative centers of the Slavs in the Elbrus region.
During expeditions in 1851 and 1914, archaeologist P.G. Akritas examined the ruins of the Scythian Temple of the Sun on the eastern slopes of Beshtau. The results of further archaeological excavations of this sanctuary were published in 1914 in the “Notes of the Rostov-on-Don Historical Society.” There, a huge stone “in the shape of a Scythian cap” was described, installed on three abutments, as well as a domed grotto.
And the beginning of major excavations in Pyatigorye (Kavminvody) was laid by the famous pre-revolutionary archaeologist D.Ya. Samokvasov, who described 44 mounds in the vicinity of Pyatigorsk in 1881. Subsequently, after the revolution, only some mounds were examined; only initial exploration work was carried out on the sites by archaeologists E.I. Krupnov, V.A. Kuznetsov, G.E. Runich, E.P. Alekseeva, S.Ya. Baychorov, Kh.Kh. Bidzhiev and others.
History of Rus' until 862.
The history of the emergence of Rus' before 862 is very interesting. The main thing is why this story
begins. Or from the moment of separation of the Slavic tribes from the total mass of all Indo-Europeans, and this is a long period that begins from approximately 4800 BC.
(on the site of which the cities of Novgorod and Staraya Russa are now located), and this was in 2395 BC.
Firstly, I will start with the fact that there are many theories about the origin of the Slavs and Russians (Tyunyaev, Demin, Zhuk, Chudinov and others). According to one theory, the Hyperboreans (sometimes called Arcto-Russians) are the ancestors of all Caucasoid peoples of the world, and they lived for 38 thousand years BC. According to another theory, the ancient Rus are the ancestors of all the Indo-European peoples of the world and they already existed by the beginning of the 6th millennium BC. But I will take a more moderate theory, according to which the Slavs (they can be called ancient Rus, since all other Slavic peoples later separated from them) were already an independent people in the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. They lived on the territory of the future Kievan Rus already in those distant times and had their own cities (Slovensk and Rusa) and their own princes. According to legend, these princes even had connections with the Egyptian pharaohs (this is according to legend); often with their squads they helped the eastern monarchs in the struggle among themselves. But in any case, they returned home after the hikes.
Already about two thousand years ago, Greek and Roman scientists knew that numerous tribes of Wends lived in eastern Europe, between the Carpathian Mountains and the Baltic Sea. These were the ancestors of modern Slavic peoples. After their name, the Baltic Sea was then called the Venedian Gulf of the Northern Ocean. According to archaeologists, the Wends were the original inhabitants of Europe, descendants of tribes that lived here back in the Stone and Bronze Ages.
The ancient name of the Slavs - Wends - was preserved in the language of the Germanic peoples until the late Middle Ages, and in the Finnish language Russia is still called Veneia. The name “Slavs” (or rather, Sklavins) began to spread only one and a half thousand years ago - in the middle of the 1st millennium AD. At first only Western Slavs were called this way. Their eastern counterparts were called antes. Then all tribes speaking Slavic languages began to be called Slavs.
By 700 BC, the ancient Slavs inhabited a vast territory of Eastern and Central Europe, including eastern Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Balarus, Ukraine, and the western regions of Russia (Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk). To the south of them lived the Scythians; there were probably also tribes who spoke the Scythian-Slavic language. Even further south than the Slavs lived the Thracians of the Balkan Peninsula, and to the west of the Slavs lived the ancient Germanic and Celtic tribes. To the north of the Slavs lived the Finno-Ugric Ural peoples. During this period, the Letto-Lithuanian tribes had a lot in common with the ancient Slavs (certainly the language of the Baltic tribes still had a lot in common with the Slavs).
Around 300-400 AD, the Slavs were divided into two groups: Western (Sklavins) and Eastern (Antes). Just at this time, the great migration of peoples began, or rather it could be called the invasion of a large multi-tribal association of Huns tribes into Europe, as a result of which large movements of ancient peoples began to occur in Europe. This particularly affected the Germanic tribes. Slavic tribes generally did not participate in these movements. They only took advantage of the weakening strength of the Illyrian and Thracian tribes and began to methodically occupy their lands. The Sklavins began to penetrate into the territory previously inhabited by the Illyrians, and the Southern Antes began to penetrate into the territory of modern Bulgaria. The bulk of the Antes remained on their territory, which in the future became Kievan Rus. By about 650 these migrations were completed.
Now the southern neighbors of the Antes were the steppe nomads - the Bulgars, Hungarians, and Khozars.
The tribes were still led by princes, and every Ant tribe still had
had its own tribal center (city), although there is no exact data about these cities. Most likely, some large settlements existed in Novgorod, Ladoga, Smolensk,
Polotsk, Kyiv. In ancient writings and legends, many names of Slavic princes are mentioned - Borevoy (it seems this name remained as a memory from the name of the Borean civilization), Gostomysl, Kiy, Shchek, Khoriv). It is believed that the princes Askold, Dir, Rurik, Sineus, Truvor were Varangians, which was undoubtedly possible. Especially in the northern part of Ancient Rus', there were traditions of hiring foreigners from among the Varangians for military leadership (I would still hire foreigners, especially Germans, for the highest positions in Russia, because Great Catherine was German and Russia in her time was the greatest power). But you can say it differently. The Slavic princes, trying to be like their Western colleagues, called themselves names similar to the Varangian ones. There are sayings that Rurik had the name Yurik, Oleg had the name Olaf.
At the same time, the long coexistence (close to each other) of the Old Russian and Norman (Scandinavian) tribes also entailed a common culture (some important heads of clans and leaders bore both Russian and Scandinavian names).
Here is information about the ancient Rus (rans, curses) from foreign sources (medieval):
- End of the 8th century. In the Life of Stephen of Sourozh, the Russian prince Bravlin is mentioned. The name of the prince possibly comes from Bravalla, under whom in 786 a great battle took place between the Danes and the Frisians. The Frisians were defeated, and many of them left their country, moving to the east.
- End of the 8th century. The Bavarian geographer names the Rus next to the Khazars, as well as some Ros (Rots) somewhere in the area between the Elbe and Sala rivers: Attoros, Viliros, Khoziros, Zabrosy.
- VIII-IX centuries. Popes Leo III (795-816), Benedict III (855-858) and other holders of the Roman table sent special messages to the “clerics of the horns”. Obviously, the communities of the Rugians (they were Arians) continued to stay apart from the rest of the Christians.
- 839 year. The Vertin annals report the arrival of representatives of the Ros people, whose ruler bore the title of Kagan (prince), to Louis I the Pious with the ambassadors of the Byzantine Emperor Theophilus.
- Until 842. The Life of George of Amastris reports the attack of the Russians on Amastris (Asia Minor).
- Between 836-847, Al-Khorezmi in his geographical work mentions the Russian Mountain, from which the Dr. River originates. mustache (Dnepr?). The news is also found in the treatise of the second half of the 10th century (Khudul al-Alam), where it is specified that the mountain is located north of the “inner Bulgarians”.
- 844 year. Al-Yaqubi reports the Russian attack on Seville in Spain.
- 844 year. Ibn Khordadbeh calls the Rus a species or genus of Slavs (two editions of his work are known).
- June 18, 860. Russian attack on Constantinople.
- 861 years old. Konstantin-Kirill the Philosopher, the future creator of the Slavic alphabet, discovered the gospel and psalter in the Crimea, written in Russian script, and, having met a person who spoke this language, mastered the spoken language and deciphered the script.
- IX century. According to the Persian historian Fakhr ad-din Mubarakshah (13th century), the Khazars had a letter that originated from Russian. The Khazars borrowed it from the nearby “branch of the Rumiians” (Byzantines), whom they call the Russians. The alphabet has 21 letters, which are written from left to right, without the letter aleph, as in Aramaic or Syriac-Nestorian script. The Khazar Jews had this letter. In this case, it is believed that the Alans are called Russians.
- 863 year. The document confirming the previous award mentions Rusaramarha (Rusar brand) on the territory of modern Austria.
- OK. 867 Patriarch Photius in his district message reports the baptism of the Ros (area of residence unknown).
- OK. 867 The Byzantine Emperor Basil, in a letter to Louis II, who accepted the title of Emperor, applies the title of Kagan, equal to the royal one, in relation to four peoples: Avars, Khazars, Bulgarians and Normans. The news is usually associated with the mention of the Kagan among the Rus in 839 (see instruction 33), as well as in a number of eastern and Russian sources proper.
- OK. 874 years old. The protege of Rome, the Patriarch of Constantinople Ignatius sent the bishop to Rus'.
- 879 year. The first mention of the Russian diocese of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, apparently located in the city of Rosiya in Eastern Crimea. This diocese existed until the 12th century.
- 879 year. Baptism of the Russians by Emperor Vasily (report by John Skylitzes).
- Until 885. The chronicle of Dalimil from the beginning of the 14th century calls the Archbishop of Moravia Methodius a Rusyn.
- Until 894. The Czech chronicle of Pulkava at the end of the 14th century includes Polonia and Russia as part of Moravia during the era of the Moravian prince Svyatopolk (871-894).
- The historian of the mid-15th century, later Pope Pius II, Aeneas Silvius speaks of Svyatopolk’s subordination of Polonia, Hungaria (later Hungary, formerly the region of the Huns) and the Russans to Rome.
- In the “Chronicle of the Whole World” by Martin Belsky (XVI century) and the chronograph of the Western Russian edition (XVI century) it is said that Svyatopolk “held the Russian lands.” Svyatopolk “with the Russian boyar” baptized the Czech prince Borzhivoy.
- The Czech chronicler Hagetius (d. 1552) recalls that Russia was formerly part of the Moravian Kingdom. A number of eastern authors retell the story of the Rus living on an island “three days’ journey” (about 100 km), whose ruler was called a hakan.
- The end of the 9th - the beginning of the 10th century. Al-Balkhi (c. 850-930) speaks of three groups of Rus': Kuyab, Slavia, Arsania. The closest to Bulgar on the Volga is Cuiaba, the most distant is Slavia.
- OK. 904 years. The Raffelstetten Trade Charter (Austria) speaks of Slavs coming “from Rugia.” Researchers usually choose between Rugiland on the Danube, Rugija in the Baltic states and Kievan Rus.
- 912-913. The campaign of the Rus to the Caspian Sea from the Black Sea, noted by the Arab scientist Masudi (mid-10th century) and other eastern authors.
- 921-922. Ibn Fadlan described the Rus he saw in the Bulgar.
- OK. 935 The regulations of the tournament in Magdeburg list among the participants Velemir, Prince (Princeps) of Russia, as well as those performing under the banner of the Duke of Thuringia Otto Redebotto, Duke of Russia and Wenceslaus, Prince of Rugia. The document was published among other Magdeburg acts by Melchior Goldast (XVII century).
- 941 year. Attack of the Ros or Rus on Byzantium. The Greek authors Theophanes, the Continuer of George Amartola and Simeon the Master (all mid-10th century) explain that the Dews are “dromites” (i.e. settlers, migrating, restless), descended “from the family of the Franks.” In the Slavic translation of the Chronicle of George Amartol, the last phrase is translated as “from the Varangian family.” Lombard Liudprand (c. 958) wrote a history in which he called the Rus "a northern people", whom the Greeks "from their appearance call the Rus" (i.e. "red"), and the inhabitants of Northern Italy "from their location the Normans." In Northern Italy, “Normans” were those living north of the Danube; in Southern Italy, the Lombards themselves were identified with the Northern Veneti.
- Until 944. Jewish-Khazar correspondence of the 10th century mentions the “King of the Rus, Halegwu,” who first attacked the Khazars, and then, at their instigation, under Roman Lekapin (920-944) went against the Greeks, where he was defeated by Greek fire. Ashamed to return to his country, Khalegwu went to Persia (in another version, Thrace), where he died along with the army.
- 943-944. A number of eastern sources close to the events speak of the Rus’ campaign against Berdaa (Azerbaijan).
- 946 year. This year is the date of the document in which the Baltic Sea is called the “Sea of Rugs”. A similar name is repeated in a document from 1150.
- Between 948-952. Konstantin Bagryanorodny mentions Rus' “near” and “far”, and also gives a parallel designation of the names of the Dnieper rapids in Russian and Slavic.
- 954-960 years. The Wounds-Rugs are in alliance with Otto I, helping him in the conquest of the rebel Slavic tribes. As a result, all the tribes that lived by the sea “against Rus'” were conquered. Likewise, Adam of Bremen and Helmold define the location of the island of the Rugians as lying “opposite the land of the Wilts.”
- 959. Embassy to Otto I of the “queen of the rugs Helena” (Olga), shortly before baptized by the Byzantine emperor Roman, with a request to send a bishop and priests. Libutius, a monk of the Mainz monastery, was appointed bishop of Rus'. But Libutius died in 961. Adalbert was appointed instead of him, who made a trip to the rulers in 961-962. The enterprise, however, ended in complete failure: the Rugians were expelled by the missionaries! V. The message about these events is described by the so-called Continuator of Reginon, behind which the researchers see Adalbert himself. In other chronicles, instead of Rugia, it is called Russia.
- Mid-10th century. Masudi mentions the Russian River and the Russian Sea. In Masudi's view, the Russian Sea - Pontus is connected to the Gulf of Oceana (Baltic Sea), and the Russes are called islanders who travel a lot on ships.
- Second half of the 10th century. The Jewish collection Josippon (Joseph ben Gorion), compiled in Southern Italy, places the Rus immediately on the shores of the Caspian Sea, and along the “Great Sea” - “Ocean” next to the Angles and Saxons. The mixing, apparently, was facilitated by the mention in the Caspian regions, in addition to the Rus, also of the Saksin people in a number of sources.
- 965 year. Ibn Yaqub visited the German (Holy Roman) Empire on a diplomatic mission and met with Otto I. In his report on the trip (included in the work of the 11th century author al-Bekri), he gives a description of the Slavic lands and names the Rus, who border in the east with the possessions of the Polish Prince Mieszko, as well as from the west on ships, attack the Prussians.
- 967 year. Pope John XIII, with a special bull authorizing the establishment of the Prague bishopric, prohibited the attraction of priests from the Russian and Bulgarian people and worship in the Slavic language. The document is reproduced in the Chronicle of Cosmas of Prague (c. 1125), and also by Annalist Saxo (c. 1140).
- 968. Adalbert was confirmed as Archbishop of Magdeburg. The letter recalls that he had previously gone to see the rulers.
- 969. The Magdeburg Annals call the inhabitants of the island of Rügen Russians.
- 968-969 years. Ibn Haukal and other eastern authors talk about the defeat of Volga Bulgaria and Khazaria by the Rus, after which the Rus’ army went to Byzantium and Andalusia (Spain). In the chronicle, these events are dated 6472-6473, which according to the Constantinople era should indicate 964-965. But in the texts of the 10th century, another cosmic era is often used, differing by four years from the Constantinople one, and therefore the chronicle indicates the same dates as the eastern sources. As for the campaigns in Spain, we could be talking about other Rus.
As can be seen from all these messages of the ancient Rus, Western historians were often confused with the Normans (Varangians), because in those days the culture of the northern Rus and the Varangians was very similar (the connections between them were very close), and this connection was with the Letto-Lithuanian tribes even stronger, even the border between the Russians and Prussians cannot be drawn.
So by 862, Ancient Rus' was basically the same as after 862, the only difference was that during this period there was no strong unified centralized state, and the principalities were tribal.
The state itself under the name “Kievan Rus” appeared after the conquest (subordination) of the Kyiv tribal state to another tribal state - Novgorod, and after the capital was moved from Novgorod the Great to Kyiv.
5. Brief summary of the history of Ancient Rus'
Our work, as is obviously clear to the reader, does not represent the results of many years of work, where everything is put in order and systematized. We have to print, so to speak, on the go, without waiting for the sometimes necessary polishing, because it is better to give at least something than to give nothing. Circumstances do not allow us to publish the work in the form we would like (“don’t go against the grain”).
The chapter essays we publish do not follow order, but rather the degree of readiness for publication.
However, quite a lot has already been published, so we consider it necessary to summarize some results in a systematic form - hence the proposed summary. Of course, this summary mainly emphasizes everything new that corrects, complements and clarifies our usual ideas.
1. The beginning of the history of Ancient Rus' goes back to ancient times. Already from the first centuries of our era, we find on the lands occupied by the Eastern Slavs a consistent and coherent series of material cultures, passing almost without interruption into the culture of Rus', already recorded by history.
If there are some gaps in the archaeological data, they quickly disappear, and the general tendency in the accumulation of material in this direction is completely clear.
One can argue about the sequence, time, and relationships of these cultures, but there is no arguing that in the first centuries of our era, at least on the Middle Dnieper and the upper reaches of the Dniester and Bug, there were Slavs.
2. The beginning of the written history of Rus' should be dated back to the end of the 8th century. From this point on, the story gives a coherent series of events without major gaps, naming names, places, narrating events and (indirectly) giving dates. The earliest accurate news about the “Rusyns” dates back to 477 (their attack on the city of Yuvava, now Salzburg).
3. It is not possible to indicate at least approximately the date of the beginning of Rus' because there were two “Rus”: the southern, Kiev, in the region of the Dnieper and Dniester, and the northern, Novgorod, in the region of Ladoga and Ilmen. Their original histories were varied, isolated, and traces of their written histories exist in varying degrees of preservation. It would therefore be more correct to consider both stories separately until the moment when they merged under Oleg into one common stream.
4. The written history of both Novgorod and Kievan pre-Oleg Rus' can be traced back to the end of the 8th century, however, even in the previous centuries there are, so to speak, isolated islands of their history, which are not yet possible to connect with continuous history. However, the hope is not lost that there will be intermediate links and the beginning of these stories will be shifted even further into the depths.
In essence, no one has done this yet, because only with the publication of this work can a completely justified and meaningful search begin. They didn’t look because they were convinced that there was nothing to look for.
5. A completely new page of pre-Askold Rus' is opened by the recently discovered “Vlesov Book” (“Isenbek tablets”), a chronicle written on tablets, almost certainly by pagan priests. The text, however, has not yet been fully published, the source itself has not been read, and its reliability has not been investigated. The “Vlesova Book” talks about events at least 300–400 years before Askold, there are even dates, but how to translate them into our time calculation is not clear. In view of all this, we are not analyzing this period yet.
6. Already the first glimpses of written history find both Russias in the form of fully formed states, with their own dynasties (in Novgorod eight generations were noted before Burivoy), they concluded offensive and defensive alliances, various treaties, fought, made peace, etc.
In both cases, we have before us states that have gone far in the formation of a class society, with a fairly high state of material culture, with their own, fairly developed crafts, with international trade, etc. The eighth century, apparently, differs little in this respect from the ninth, when we find both Russias already quite feudalized.
The ideas of Schlözer and others that the Eastern Slavs of the 8th and 9th centuries. were savages, similar to animals and birds in their way of life; from the point of view of modern science, they can be called simply savage, exceptionally ignorant.
7. History captures Novgorod Rus' at the end of the 8th century. defending, in the person of Prince Burivoy, its independence from the Varangians, apparently the Scandinavians. After a long struggle, the Varangians finally captured Novgorod, and Burivoy fled to a remote part of his possessions beyond the reach of the Varangians. It was this moment of payment of tribute to the Varangians by the Novgorodians that was noted, presumably, by the first Russian chronicler.
The Novgorodians, however, did not endure the oppression of the Scandinavians for long; after begging Burivoy for his son Gostomysl, they rebelled and drove out the Varangians (this is noted in the chronicle). The long and glorious reign of Gostomysl began.
8. Nestor was completely silent about this reign (mentioning only the fact itself, dully), and one can understand why: he was writing the history of southern Kievan Rus and the history of the northern did not interest him, moreover, this took him deeper from his immediate tasks. That this was so can be seen from the immutable fact that he considered Oleg to be the first prince in Rus'; he does not consider Rurik to be a Russian prince, because Novgorod was not considered a Russian state at that time, but was considered a “Slovenian”. It is possible that Nestor would not have mentioned Rurik at all if not for his son Igor, about whom it was impossible not to say who his father was. By the end of his life, Gostomysl had lost all four of his sons, and he was faced with the difficult question of succession to the throne. His choice fell on Rurik, the grandson of his middle daughter Umila, who was married to one of the overseas princes. His desire (in a veiled form - in the form of a dream-prediction) became known to everyone and was greeted favorably.
After the death of Gostomysl, however, troubles began, which ended with an agreement between the northern tribes on the choice of a common prince. They hesitated between the following proposals: 1) elect a prince from among themselves; 2) invite from the Danube Slavs; 3) from Kyiv, from the glades; 4) invite from the Khazars; 5) elect a prince from the overseas Varangians. The last proposal prevailed: Gostomysl’s wishes were fulfilled, and the old Slavic dynasty was restored, but through the female line.
10. Given the current state of our knowledge, there is now no doubt about the following: 1) the calling of the Varangians is certainly a historical fact, confirmed by three independent sources - Russians like Nestor, the Joachim Chronicle, the Mecklenburg legend (see below); 2) the chronicler called “Varangians” not only the Scandinavians, but also the inhabitants of the western part of the Baltic coast in general, including the Western Slavs (that they sent for the prince not to the Swedes, not to the Norwegians and not to the Gotlanders, is absolutely clear from the chronicle) : in this case we could only talk about Western Slavs; 3) the names Rurik, Sineus, as we have shown, are Slavic names, and that Rurik’s mother was a Slav, the daughter of Gostomysl, is clearly shown by the Joachim Chronicle; 4) in 1840, the Frenchman Marmier, while exploring Mecklenburg, recorded a local legend that the prince of the Slavic tribe of Obodrich Godlav had three sons, Rurik, Sineus and Truvor, who went to Rus', drove out other Varangians and began to reign there. This testimony of a Frenchman, who has nothing to do with the dispute about the calling of the Varangians, shows that Rurik was also a Slav on his father’s side. It turns out that the “calling of the Varangians” is noted on two sides: in the Russian chronicle, i.e. in the country where Rurik came, and in folk tradition in Mecklenburg, i.e. in the country from where Rurik came. The Norman theory has absolutely no basis - let us recall that not a single source, written or preserved by folk memory among the peoples of Germanic origin in the West, knows anything about the calling of the Varangians, and this is understandable: the calling concerned the Slavic, not the Germanic tribes. Only a complete obscurantist can now defend the Norman theory.
11. During the 17 years of his reign (first in Ladoga for four years, then in Novgorod), Rurik managed to consolidate the tribes of Northern Rus', but in Novgorod he had to use force: Vadim the Brave, the leader, and others were killed, while other Novgorodians fled to Kiev, away from Rurik’s regime, which seemed to them slavery (it is quite natural that Rurik brought with him management methods that he had learned under a less democratic state system).
Rurik also managed to help Kievan Rus in liberating itself from the yoke of the Khazars - he sent Askold to help them, but the merger of the Novgorod and Kievan states did not happen.
12. Death seized Rurik at the moment when his son Igor was still a boy, carried in his arms. Oleg, a Norwegian, Igor’s uncle on his mother, who was a Norwegian princess, became the regent of Northern Rus'. Since Oleg was Rurik’s governor and at the same time actually exercised reign in the state, different chronicles call him either a governor or a prince.
Having received news that the people of Kiev were dissatisfied with Askold (because of his Christian sympathies, one must assume), Oleg set off on a campaign to the south, taking with him the young Igor as material proof of his rights to reign. Askold was betrayed by the people of Kiev, killed, and Oleg occupied Kyiv without a fight.
Then Oleg took a step of enormous significance - he moved the capital of the united East Slavic state to Kyiv. From that moment, Northern Rus' began to gradually take on the name “Rus” (“from the Varangians they were nicknamed Rus”), this moment, both in essence and formally, is the beginning of that Rus' that we know from our chronicle. The founder of this united state turned out to be the Norwegian Oleg, completely by accident, due to Igor’s early childhood. This is the only grain of truth in the entire Norman theory, but we must not forget that the presence of a foreign prince on the throne does not mean that the country from which this prince comes determines the course of development, culture, organization, etc. of a given state - Russian culture, The Russian state was created by its own, East Slavic or, in simpler terminology, Russian hands.
13. The very word “Rus”, “Rusyn” came from the south and then spread to the White Sea. There is every reason to think that it appeared on the Middle Dnieper already in historical times from somewhere in the south. In any case, in 477 the famous Odoacer, ruler of Rome, was at the same time the “rex ruthenorum”. The memory of this was preserved among the people even during the time of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, for he, turning to the people with a call to rise up against Poland, considers Odoacer to be the direct ancestor of the Cossacks.
Taking into account the existence of legends about Czech, Lech and Rus among the Central European and Southern Slavs, we can assume with a certain probability that Rus, as the name of the state, was borrowed from the name of a leader like Ital (Italy), Hellas (Ancient Greece, hence “Hellenes” ), Pelops (Peloponnese), etc., of which we have hundreds of examples in history, up to at least Amerigo Vespucci, who gave the name to America. The very name Rus is probably just a nickname - he was a Rus, that is, he had light brown hair.
14. Having united the forces of Novgorod and Kievan Rus, Oleg quickly subjugated almost all the other tribes of the Eastern Slavs and related Finno-Ugric tribes and, having gathered a huge army, made a successful campaign against Byzantium in 907. The Treaty of 907 restored peaceful relations and determined the conditions for further existence. However, in 911 a very detailed agreement was concluded, this time exclusively relating to peaceful relations and regulating them on all sides of their relationship.
All this time Igor remained in Kyiv. In 911, Oleg arranged the marriage of Igor with Pskovian Olga from the Gostomysl family, his relative. Her Slavic name was Beautiful.
Oleg died, apparently, during a trip to his homeland in his old age.
15. The history of Kievan pre-Oleg Rus proceeded completely differently and isolated from the Scandinavians. First of all, it was much more turbulent than the history of Northern Rus'. In the north, the political situation was much simpler: the neighbors of Rus' were at a very low level of culture (mainly hunting) and did not pose a serious danger to the Novgorod “Slovenes”.
The only factor that could play some role were the Scandinavians, but their role was temporary, insignificant and superficial.
The situation was completely different in the south. For centuries, Rus' was here under the economic and cultural influence of Byzantium and partly Rome. In addition, almost every century a new wave of newcomers from the east dramatically changed the situation in the Black Sea region and indirectly influenced Rus'.
If statehood arose in the south earlier than in the north, the line of its development was much more discontinuous. Rus' (so to speak) was created here and disintegrated many times, because the waves of aliens were sometimes of enormous force. Hence the lack of a continuous line of state development in the south.
We cannot now clarify when, but Kievan Rus, apparently, began to be called Rus here not from time immemorial, but after some tribe of Rusyns that came from the south and captured the clearings with Kiev. We have evidence that already in the first half of the 7th century. Southern Rus' extended its influence even to the distant Caspian Sea. The ruler of Derbent, Shahriar, already in 644 definitely said that the Rus and the Khazars were his two main enemies and that the Rus were “enemies of the whole world” (implied in Arabic).
If Theophanes’ message is interpreted correctly, and this is apparently the case, then in 774 we find Rus' already in certain relations with Byzantium.
Finally, in the first half of the 9th century. (839) we find Rus' concluding an agreement with Byzantium on friendship, and its ambassadors are received with great courtesy (this fact was not included in Russian chronicles, but was mentioned by Western European chronicles).
When Southern Rus' came under the political domination of the Khazars is not specified. Apparently, it was not very long and was largely nominal (it all boiled down mainly to the payment of tribute). At least, there is evidence indicating that Southern Rus' had sufficient autonomy: it fought and concluded peace treaties, without involving Khazaria in them at all. Most likely, Rus' simply bought off its neighbor, that is, it did what Byzantium and Rome did.
In 860, Rus' undertook a punitive expedition to Constantinople for the violation of the treaty by the Greeks, the murder of several Russians, etc. The revenge was terrible. The Russians returned home, satiated with revenge and with a huge amount of loot. This event was included in Russian chronicles from Greek chronicles, but in a distorted form and with a chronological error (the campaign took place not in 852, but in 860).
Soon, however, peaceful relations were restored, and by 867 an event of enormous cultural significance took place: Rus' received a bishop from Byzantium and partially adopted Christianity; a few years later there was already an archbishopric in Rus'.
Askold's campaign against Byzantium in 874 was unsuccessful, and one might think that this made it easier for Oleg to capture Kyiv.
16. After Oleg, the first prince of united Rus', a Norwegian who reigned only due to the childhood of his nephew, the legal heir, Igor, reigned last. Igor's father Rurik is a Slav, his mother is a Norwegian princess, Igor was born in Rus' and was married to Pskov Olga, a Slav from the Gostomysl family. His reign was not very successful. Although he kept the tribes united by Oleg in subjection, his campaign against Byzantium ended in failure. The second campaign, although it did not shed blood and brought indemnity from the Greeks, was still completed with an agreement less favorable than Oleg’s agreement with the Greeks. His murder by the Drevlyans led to Olga’s regency and her war with the Drevlyans, for her son Svetoslav was still a small boy.
It should be noted that Igor’s murder occurred because of his greed - having received tribute from the Drevlyans, he began to demand it a second time: this had already caused the indignation of the Drevlyans. It is interesting that Russian chronicles are silent about the cause of Igor’s death, but Byzantine sources speak about this in more detail: Igor was captured by the Drevlyans, tied to two spruce trees bent down, then the spruce trees were released, and Igor was torn to pieces.
The legends of the chronicle about Olga's revenge reflect her anger at such an inhumane reprisal against her husband.
17. Olga was a purebred Slav, a Pskovian, the sleigh she rode on was kept for a long time in Pskov, which was even noted in the chronicle. Having taken revenge on the Drevlyans for the death of her husband, she managed to keep all the other tribes in subjection, restored order within the state and did not engage in external wars. The state, under Olga’s prudent management, grew stronger and moved along the path of prosperity.
Olga's baptism apparently took place in 955 in Constantinople. Her conversion to Christianity was private and, apparently, secret. Christianity did not have any noticeable success under her; she failed to convert her son Svetoslav to Christianity, despite all her efforts. The mass of the people still stood on the side of paganism.
18. Shortly before her death, Svetoslav, a pure Slav by blood, who walked firmly in line with the people in his paganism, ascended the throne. Strong in body and spirit, Svetoslav was a typical conqueror, for whom the real interests of the people were alien. In the struggle, in the spoils taken in the war, he saw the purpose of life and neglected the interests of the state.
It is in vain that modern Soviet historians see in his actions the steps of a reasonable, useful statesman - Svetoslav was an adventurer like Richard the Lionheart, whose all aspirations were to fight.
He was not at all interested in the affairs of Novgorod; about Kyiv, he directly stated that he “didn’t like living there.” History has long ago rendered its true verdict about him through the mouths of the Kiev contemporaries. “Prince,” they said, “you are looking for someone else’s land, but neglecting your own.”
The positive thing about his attempt was that he strengthened some of the East Slavic tribes and completely defeated the Khazars. Under him, the borders of Rus' approached its ethnographic borders.
Ambitious dreams even led Svetoslav to think about capturing Constantinople, but the war with Byzantium in Bulgaria ended in failure, and on the way to Kyiv he was killed by the Pechenegs in an ambush on the Dnieper.
19. Yaropolk was the son of Svetoslav, apparently from a Hungarian princess. Probably, under the influence of his grandmother Olga, he had a great disposition towards Christians, this caused great discontent among the people with Yaropolk, whom the chronicles portray as a gentle and fair man. He was not a Christian, but his obvious sympathies for Christianity gave rise to the fact that the bones of him and his brother Oleg were subsequently baptized.
We do not know what caused the collision between him and his brother Oleg, but as a result, Oleg died during his flight, being thrown along with his horse into a ditch on a narrow bridge.
In the death of Oleg, Vladimir, Yaropolk’s middle brother, but from a different mother, saw danger for himself and fled from Novgorod overseas for military help from the Varangians.
Returning with the Varangians (whose nationality they were is essentially unknown), Vladimir occupied Novgorod. In Polotsk, during a clash with the Polotsk prince Rogvolod, he captured the latter’s daughter, who had refused him matchmaking and had already been wooed to Yaropolk, made her by force his wife and thereby aggravated the discord with her brother.
Thanks to the bribery of the governor Yaropolk Dobrynya, Vladimir's maternal uncle, Vladimir prevailed in the battle. From further events it is clear that Vladimir promised the governors of Yaropolk a firm course towards paganism. When Yaropolk was treacherously killed (we should not forget that Vladimir was a fratricide), Vladimir finally sat down in Kyiv and began to erect idols, fulfilling his promise.
20. Vladimir was the illegitimate son of Svetoslav and Malusha, the housekeeper of Princess Olga.
The transformation of the Slav Malusha by the Normanists into the Scandinavian Malfred is an example of a shameless scientific lie: her father was Malko from the city of Lyubech - an obvious Slav, her brother was Dobrynya, whose name clearly speaks of his nationality, she herself was Malusha, a local courtyard girl, and not without reason a proud Polotsk Princess Rogneda refused to marry Vladimir, the son of a slave (“I don’t want to rozuti Robichich”), but accepted the proposal of Yaropolk, a son from the same father, but from a noble mother.
21. Vladimir was a true son of the Russian people both by origin and by his politics. Waging numerous wars, he united all the East Slavic tribes, including Chervona Rus (Galicia) and expanded the borders of his state to ethnographic borders.
In contrast to his father, he did not wage aggressive wars and, having brought the borders of the state to ethnographic limits, he devoted himself entirely to consolidating the forces of the state.
By marrying a Byzantine princess, the first bride of all Europe, whose hand was denied to the son of the German emperor, Vladimir covered his semi-plebeian origin and put the dynasty on a level with the most noble dynasties of Europe.
There is evidence to suggest that he achieved from Byzantium a higher rank in the hierarchy of rulers. At least on coins he was depicted wearing a crown and royal vestments.
22. Vladimir’s adoption of Christianity as the state religion played a huge role in the life of Rus'. This step was taken after much weighing and testing of various faiths and was an exclusively political step that promoted Rus' to the ranks of the primary states of Europe.
Vladimir's baptism took place in Korsun (in Crimea) in the late autumn of 989 or early spring of 990.
The baptism of Rus' in Kyiv took place in 990 (not 988!). The discrepancy in the dates and place of Vladimir's baptism in different sources is explained by the fact that religious sources sought to hide the fact that Vladimir adopted Christianity not for moral, but for state reasons. For the canonization of Vladimir, these sources sought to portray the matter in such a way that baptism was Vladimir’s personal desire, in which case they saw the basis for canonization, which Byzantium refused and refused. Therefore, they called the year of baptism 988, and the place - Rus'.
The new religion served as a powerful tool for uniting a diverse state into one whole, created a common language (the language of religious worship) and thereby led to the Russification of non-Russian tribes and strengthened the position of the prince (God was an autocrat in heaven, while the prince was on earth), 23. Vladimir introduced remarkable innovations: compulsory literacy training and science in general for children of the wealthy classes, care for the sick and infirm, reasonable, humane laws were issued (for example, the death penalty was abolished, apparently for the first time in Europe). The desire to learn and borrow something good from other peoples gave Vladimir the basis for sending special embassies to Constantinople, Rome, Egypt, Jerusalem, Babylon, etc., precisely for the purpose of “surveying” foreign laws, customs, etc., thereby pushing Rus' is on the path of rapid cultural development.
Vladimir himself was a man with an extremely broad outlook, but at the same time he was not a dry, “headed” person: he loved feasts, fun, art, women, etc. Moreover, his feasts were not the act of a person withdrawn in his contentment - he feasted with all the people and was extremely generous.
It was this closeness to the people that created his tender nickname - the Red Sun; the people loved him selflessly and conveyed this love in epics to the present day.
During the existence of Rus', and then Russia, there were only two giants: Vladimir the Great and Peter the Great. Both radically changed the entire life of the people: one with the introduction of Christianity and humanity, science, the other with a secondary rapprochement with Europe after 300 years of Tatar darkness.
However, as individuals, they are incomparable - Vladimir is covered with the love of the people and grateful memory, the people are silent about Peter, and not without reason, for Peter was not distinguished by his humanity.
24. We know very little about Svetopolk the Accursed. After Vladimir's death, he immediately committed triple fratricide and seized power into his own hands. Yaroslav, warned in time by his sister, survived and gained the upper hand in the subsequent battle. Svetopolk fled somewhere abroad and, unknown where, died in a fever.
The desire of some Catholic historians to portray Svetopolk as a bright personality because of his sympathies for Rome clearly shows the depth of their moral decline: they count a person cursed by the entire people as one of their friends and are proud of their closeness to the triple fratricide.
25. Who Yaroslav’s mother was has not yet been established with certainty. The chronicle claims that he was the son of Rogneda. To what extent the repulsive picture of Rogneda’s possession corresponds to reality, we do not know. We know, however, that, having taken possession of her by right of the conqueror, he made her his real, legal wife, probably because of her princely family. There is information that, having married Anna, Vladimir officially notified Rogneda of his conversion to Christianity and marriage, that is, he showed full respect for her. Whether Rogneda was Scandinavian or Slavic is unknown. It is only known that her father was Rogvolod “from overseas,” but he could also have been an overseas Slav like Godlav, Rurik’s father.
The Normanists’ assertions are only a guess, far from indisputable, especially since the name Rogvolod (analogy: Vsevolod) is a Slavic name, and Rogneda herself was so “Scandinavian” that in refusing Vladimir she used the most typical Slavic detail (a non-Slav would not have put it that way).
Yaroslav's whole life passed in close communication with Novgorod. Having become the Grand Duke in Kyiv, he gave special rights to Novgorod; unfortunately, history has not preserved what they were. The Novgorodians were very proud of these rights and retained them until their defeat by Moscow, first by Ivan III, and then finally by Ivan IV.
In general, in Kievan Rus, Novgorod was the second capital, and the prince who sat in Novgorod was usually a candidate for the throne in Kyiv.
Yaroslav fought quite a lot, but these were mostly wars for power. He waged almost no external wars of conquest. Under him, Rus' took one of the most brilliant places in Europe. First of all, this was facilitated by broad dynastic ties: Byzantium, France, Hungary, Poland, Norway, Germany, etc. were connected with Russia through marriages with members of Yaroslav’s family. Suffice it to say that his daughter Anna ruled France.
Under him, Kyiv was expanded, strengthened and decorated. Foreigners saw him as a rival of Constantinople. Crafts and trade flourished. Culture reached a very high degree of development; it was the apogee of Ancient Rus'.
This is where we will stop the presentation of the summary for now.
From the foregoing it is clear that the actual picture of events in Ancient Rus' was significantly different from what is usually imagined. How and why could it be that historians have created an incorrect picture?
Reason one: insufficient development of Russian primary sources. Russian chronicles and other sources like “Russian Pravda”, treaties, charters, various records and inscriptions, etc. have been very insufficiently studied. There are hundreds of places that are understood differently, or rather, completely misunderstood. Naturally, having such source material, historians have poor command of it and cannot take from the historical heritage what is actually there.
Not only individual words, expressions or phrases remain dark; for various reasons, the entire context often turns out to be dark. The chronology of events is often shaky and sometimes not at all correct. Many passages have been interpreted incorrectly, but these incorrect explanations have already become canon, and no one turns to the original source to find out the truth. There is no summary of the chronicle, where the text would be verified according to all available lists, and we still do not have the opportunity to read it without omissions, insertions, errors, clerical errors, etc. A summary of all chronicles has not yet been published; a lot has been done, but not completed. There are chronicle lists that have not yet been published. Finally, many works, for example, Tatishchev’s “History,” which contains extracts from original but now disappeared manuscripts, have become a bibliographic rarity. Many works published in Latin or even German in the 18th and 19th centuries remained untranslated.
For all this colossal rough work, historians do not have enough hands, and help from philologists, dialectologists, geographers and, in general, simply people interested in history, is extremely necessary.
Reason two: insufficient development of foreign primary sources concerning the history of Rus'. A huge legacy in Latin, Greek and other languages has not been translated or commented on, and yet from these sources we sometimes learn much more than from Russian chronicles, for example, about Svetoslav’s wars. Rus' did not live in emptiness, but among other peoples, therefore, without the most detailed knowledge of the chronicles, acts, treaties, histories, hagiographic literature, reports of travelers, etc. of neighboring peoples, it is impossible to write the true history of Rus'. We find the most interesting information from Muslim writers, but apart from the work of Garkavi, which has become outdated and has become a bibliographic rarity, we have nothing. Dlugosz’s “History of Poland” in Latin, written using ancient Russian chronicles that are now lost, has not been translated at all, etc.
There is no collection of Georgian and Armenian authors - a collection of passages about Ancient Rus'. Who should do this if not Russian historians and philologists: to fish out at least brief passages about Rus' from foreign sources, not foreigners? Meanwhile, we see that data from foreign sources is sometimes extremely important, for example, on the question of the time and baptism of Vladimir the Great.
The publication of the collection of foreign authors has not even begun. Of course, neglecting such material, it is impossible to write a true, genuine history, just as it is impossible to entrust this matter to foreigners; for this, it is enough to look at the writings of Baumgarten, Taube, Stender-Petersen and others.
The third reason (and perhaps the main one): the imperfection of the scientific method of historians. This is expressed as follows:
1) Historians do not strive primarily for accuracy; one example with the main date of Russian chronology is enough. The chronicle begins in Russian chronology in 6360 “from the Creation of the world”; It’s natural to find out what kind of year this is in the reckoning “from the Nativity of Christ.” There are several opinions: some believe that Christ was born in 5500, others in 5506, and others, finally, in 5508 - “from the Creation of the world.” Any researcher who follows a precise, logical method will first of all ask the question: what kind of reckoning was adopted by Russian chronicles? A few lines below this is said indirectly, you just need to do two arithmetic operations - addition and subtraction. Not a single historian did this; as a result, instead of 860, 852 was taken as the basis. The difference of 8 years for the main date is serious, and further errors resulted from it. They also did not notice that the Greek preacher, telling the history of the world to Vladimir, directly said that the latter was born in 5500, and not 5508, from the Creation of the world. Where there is no precision, there is no science.
2) Historians perceive facts somehow pointlessly, without connection with time, space and conditions, examples: a) when listing events from the Creation of the world, the chronicle always counts “from” and “to”; if we add up all the numbers, we will not get the required 6360, but 54 years less; this was noticed, but the reason for this was not revealed. Meanwhile, the text says: “From David and from the beginning of the kingdom of Solomon.” How can there be a period from the reign of two kings at once? It is clear that there was a copyist's omission in the text: the period from David to Solomon was indicated, but the copyist skipped 2-3 words, and there was a gap of 54 years. Such an elementary thing was not discovered, although it is accessible to every smart boy; b) it is well known that the meaning of many Russian words has changed over time, which means that when reading ancient texts, extreme caution must be exercised, especially if it concerns the Church Slavonic language, this was not taken into account, hence the false readings: “they began to call the Russian Land” at all does not mean that from that time the Russian land received its name (this is simply illogical, stupid), but means that the Russian land was first mentioned in the Greek chronicle; further: “girding all of Rus' around” does not mean at all “they took all of Rus' with them,” but “took for themselves,” that is, they divided all of Rus' among themselves, - after all, in ancient times they said “gird around your wife,” what did it mean to “take for oneself”; finally - “from the Varangians they were called Rus” does not mean at all that because of the Varangians the Slovenes began to be called Rus, and the Varangians began to call them Rus, because the newcomers did not distinguish between the Novgorodians and the Kievans, for them it was a single tribe, etc. Our history is replete with such false readings; c) historians do not make a difference between the assumed and the proven; it is enough for someone, especially an authority, to make a probable assumption, as it is made by the canon, and no one thinks that this is only a probable hypothesis; d) historians are prone to uncontrolled imagination and do not feel any responsibility for what is said; It is enough to tell someone that the Russians of Egyptian origin, as they begin to take this into account, begin to comment on 100% stupidity, pay attention to it, and even pick it up; f) historians do not have what representatives of the exact sciences have: punishment for their mistakes; It is enough for a historian to defend his doctoral dissertation, that is, to prove his ability for scientific research, and the widest field for uncontrolled activity, interpreted as freedom of scientific thought, opens up for him.
As a result, history is clogged with thousands of absurd theories, statements, and false interpretations. It is different with representatives of the exact sciences, where after a scientist has made a number of major mistakes, he is no longer taken into account, and he is soon almost automatically thrown out from among scientists. It cannot happen among representatives of the exact sciences that, while writing (let’s say, as a comparison) the history of Ancient Rus' in the Norman spirit, a scientist does not say that there are also anti-Norman schools, does not discuss all the “pro” and “contra”, etc. - His scientific conscience, his scientific “credo” cannot allow this; among historians this is done easily and with impunity.
Reason four: the extraordinary pliability of historians to the pressure of the powers that be. Once upon a time, historians generally represented themselves as praisers, of course for money and honors, of their overlords. In the present era, when we already have universities and academies of sciences, it would seem that historians should have objectivity, at least to present what happened a thousand years ago, but this is not the case, and a heavy legacy still weighs heavily on the historical science.
If personal servility now no longer has as much place as before, there are other forms of servility: political, national, religious, etc. What is, for example, just the religious servility of the renegades Baumgarten, Taube and others worth before Catholicism. Meanwhile, they are believed as scientists, although they sometimes descended to the level of scientific fraud. Their research is so biased that it cannot be taken into account by true science.
The Norman theory was also purely political, that is, satisfying the interests of German chauvinism, sheltered near the throne in Russia. Examining our history objectively, we see that the Scandinavian-Germans played absolutely no role worthy of attention in it. They were neither conquerors nor organizers. They appeared as a mercenary military force and were immediately removed when internal military conflicts ended. They also never played any role in domestic politics; for example, we do not know of a single palace coup in which the Scandinavians played a role.
Everything was invented by idle pro-German historians who did not want to pay attention to the indisputable fact that in foreign sources, which were primarily supposed to talk about the conquest of Rus', about the rights of the Germans to the throne, etc., there is not a word about the foundations of the Norman theory .
Nowhere in Rus' did the Scandinavians form separate settlements and there were no Scandinavian groups of women, old people and children. There were only visitors, or immigrants, but in absolutely insignificant numbers.
The entire Norman theory is based only on a false interpretation of Russian chronicles. The Normanists completely arbitrarily inserted or deleted words, replaced letters in words, thereby completely changing the meaning, arranged their own punctuation, etc., in a word, they got what they wanted to get. All their writings are just a bunch of worthless, scribbled paper.
Finally, there is a special kind of distortion of historical truth that primarily satisfies personal vanity. It is especially used by people of foreign origin, but educated in Russia. These individuals, having returned to their homeland after 1917 and knowing the Russian language perfectly, enjoy enormous authority, but direct their activities towards falsifying the history of Rus', either because they want to flatter their national chauvinism, or to satisfy their feeling of hatred towards those , who deprived them of a warm, familiar place. Both paths bring them fame and money.
The fifth reason, or rather, the consequence of all four previous ones taken together: ignoring sources that contradict the Norman theory. The Joachim Chronicle, which contains the history of Northern Rus' before Rurik, has been declared unreliable and relegated to the shadows; many passages from the Nikon, Tver and other chronicles are not actually included in the history; at most, they are given with an official note: “The origin of this news in this chronicle is unknown " The “Vlesova Book,” the discovery of which was announced at the very beginning of 1954, has still not aroused enough interest; professional historians are silent about it. Why? Because it explodes all the roots of their symbol of historical faith. Let’s say that the “Vlesova Book” is a fake, but this must be proven! In reality, we see complete indifference.
It is quite natural that without using all historical sources, it is impossible to write a true history.
Here it is necessary to say something about Russian chronicles. It was a long and complex process that can be divided into four stages:
1. The era of pagan chronicles, the era of the “Book of Vles”. This chronicle, apparently, was used only to the smallest extent, for subsequent chronicles were all Christian and the use of pagan ones constituted a religious crime. Not only citing such a source, but even holding it in one’s hands was punishable. Obviously, Christian chroniclers were aware of the existence of this chronicle, but not directly, but indirectly, through folk legends. This era has not been studied at all by science, but it will probably make huge changes in our history.
2. The era of chronicle, i.e. weather recording of events in a very brief form. Only traces of this era remain in southern records. We called this era conventionally Askold, because there are absolutely precisely dated weather records with minor, purely Kyiv events from the time of Askold. It made no sense for later chroniclers to invent such news as the fall of heavy rains, a swarm of locusts, etc.; such news is certainly authentic.
3. The era of the first chronicle, the era when an attempt was made for the first time to give the history of Rus', that is, a consistent and detailed account of events, often with an explanation of the conditions and motives for actions, and all this against the background of general history. This era should be called Joachim's. The first chronicle, apparently, was Novgorodian, but it was in Joachim’s record; nevertheless, other Novgorod chronicles are basically only an abbreviated presentation of Nestor’s (see below).
Therefore, Joachim should be considered the first chronicler, and not Nestor, who lived almost a hundred years after the writing of the Joachim Chronicle. Joachim, being a bishop († 1030), an envoy of Byzantium, and certainly a Slav by nationality, for only persons with knowledge of the Russian language could be sent to convert the Novgorodians to Christianity, was undoubtedly a highly educated man. Hence the wide plan of the chronicle, and references to Greek sources, and the adoption of the reign of the Greek emperor as the basis for chronology, and mention of the spread of Christianity among the Central European and Southern Slavs, etc.
4. The era of Nestor, the era of tendentious history based on the “promotion” of the Rurik dynasty, obscuring the presence of several ancient East Slavic states (at least Novgorod, Polotsk), obscuring the history of a long and persistent struggle against paganism, etc.
Nestor, a simple monk, with a horizon undoubtedly narrower than that of Bishop Joachim, borrowed from the latter the entire introduction to the chronicle and threw out everything that related to Novgorod and could interfere with his main task - the exaltation of the Kyiv princes.
To this he added a number of folk legends about historical figures, without particularly worrying about their accuracy and logic, used some official documents, previous chronicles and... a vinaigrette from Russian history, suitable for the mass reader, was ready.
Being ideologically purposeful, this vinaigrette played into the hands of the Kyiv princes and was therefore recognized by official history. The chronicle of Joachim and documents similar to it were pushed far into the archives and gradually withdrawn from circulation. Only a happy accident preserved the ancient Joachim Chronicle within the framework of the little-educated monk and transferred part of it into the hands of Tatishchev.
Historiographers did not understand the essence of Russian chronicles and accepted Nestorov’s version, undoubtedly tendentious, for real history.
They simply did not believe Joachim’s chronicle, because it completely destroyed the established canon.
Exploratory research thought was suppressed by political trends.
Nowadays there is no need to talk about the calling of the Scandinavian Varangians (the Western Slavs, also called “Varangians,” were invited), so the Joachim Chronicle emerges by itself, and with it the rest of the historical truth is restored.
Justice requires that we note that the restoration of truth belongs entirely to us. Before us, not a single historian understood the true meaning of the Joachim Chronicle.
So, historians have not understood the relative value of various primary sources, hence the subsequent errors. Chronicle records already existed under Askold. 872 can be considered the first exact date of the original Russian chronicle that mentioned the murder of Askold's son by the Bulgarians.
With the appearance of the Rurikovichs in Kyiv, which apparently caused the defeat of primary Christianity there, chronicle recording probably ceased, resuming only almost 100 years later. Only this can explain the amazing poverty and vagueness of the chronicle information in the era of the first Rurikovichs.
In the era of Vladimir the Great, chronicle records apparently began again, and then, presumably around the year 1000, the first real (Joachim) chronicle appeared. It is hardly worth adding that there was no “Initial Code” by Shakhmatov or “The Legend of the Spread of Christianity in Rus'” by Likhachev - these are scientific fictions not confirmed by facts. Finally, the impartiality of the chronicle is a harmful myth with which the historian should not allow himself to be stupefied.
Now let's move on to some general conclusions of our summary. Our former historians were completely silent, and modern historians (mainly Soviet) are just beginning to talk about the ancient, pre-Rurik history of Rus'. Until now, Rus' has emerged onto the arena of history completely unexpectedly, unjustifiably, like a meteor falling from the sky.
In fact, the history of Rus' (even with the very name “Rus”) can be traced back several centuries.
Under other names, the Slavs (including the Eastern ones) appeared already in the first centuries of our era, and it would not be surprising if over time it was finally proven that the “Scythian ploughmen” of Herodotus were Eastern Slavs.
Thus, all pre-literate and significant part of written history has been taken away from us. The tragedy is that the completely Norman theory still reigns in Western European science, the era of medieval prejudices still reigns there, and a number of brilliant minds stand completely aside from the development of the true history of Rus' in the aspect of all of Europe. The saddest thing is that even petty charlatanism is mixed in with obscurantism.
Further, on the basis of the latest historical, archaeological and other data, it can be considered irrefutably established that the culture of Ancient Rus', its entire standard of living, was much higher, richer, more diverse and, most importantly, more independent than the Normanists claimed.
At the time of the appearance of Rurik in Northern Rus' (or rather, Slovenia), the East Slavic tribes from the mouth of the Volkhov to the mouth of the Dniester, from the Carpathians to Rostov and Suzdal were already at a very high stage of development. These were sedentary, predominantly agricultural tribes with numerous cities and a significant population.
A number of crafts were widespread, and many of them were at a very high level. Art, its own, local, did not lag behind other aspects of life, testifying to significant material well-being. Now there is no doubt about this, because in Rus' molds for casting various complex decorations, material for this casting, defective specimens and the products themselves were found nearby. No one can now say that defective items were brought from abroad.
It is very likely that already in the time of Rurik there was a special kind of writing in Rus', as evidenced by the birch bark letters of Novgorod, the “Vlesova Book” and other material monuments.
From the book A Short Course in Russian History author Klyuchevsky Vasily Osipovich From the book Ancient Rus' through the eyes of contemporaries and descendants (IX-XII centuries); Lecture course author Danilevsky Igor NikolaevichTopic 3 ORIGINS OF THE CULTURE OF ANCIENT Rus' Lecture 7 Pagan traditions and Christianity in Ancient Rus' Lecture 8 Everyday ideas of Old Russian
From the book The True History of Russia. Notes from an amateur authorAbout the early history of Ancient Rus' So, the Russian state began with Rurik. Was he a Norman or a Slav? The Norman version appeared from the pen of Miller. Lomonosov immediately rebelled against this version, and as a result of the actions he took, Miller was banned
From the book History of Russia author Ivanushkina V V3. Ancient Rus' in the period of the X – beginning of the XII centuries. Adoption of Christianity in Rus'. The role of the Church in the life of Ancient Rus' Olga’s grandson Vladimir Svyatoslavovich was initially a zealous pagan. He even placed idols of pagan gods near the princely court, to whom the Kievans brought
From the book The True History of Russia. Notes from an Amateur [with illustrations] author Guts Alexander KonstantinovichAbout the early history of Ancient Rus' So, the Russian state began with Rurik. Was he a Norman or a Slav? The Norman version came from Miller's pen. Lomonosov immediately rebelled against this version, and as a result of the actions he took, Miller was banned
From the book Rus' and the Varangians author Vasilyeva Nina Ivanovna From the book National Bolshevism author Ustryalov Nikolay Vasilievich From the book Domestic History: Cheat Sheet author author unknown8. ACCEPTANCE OF CHRISTIANITY AND BAPTISM OF Rus'. CULTURE OF ANCIENT Rus' One of the largest events of long-term significance for Rus' was the adoption of Christianity as a state religion. The main reason for the introduction of Christianity in its Byzantine version was
From the book The Road Home author Zhikarentsev Vladimir Vasilievich From the book USSR: from ruin to world power. Soviet breakthrough by Boffa Giuseppe“A short course” in the history of the CPSU(b) It was on this basis that Stalin’s main ideological and political action was carried out. A book appeared entitled “History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). Short course." It came out at the end of summer - beginning of autumn 1938, that is
From the book To the Origins of Rus' [People and Language] author Trubachev Oleg NikolaevichFrom the history of the language of Ancient and New Rus' 1. From the history and linguistic geography of East Slavic development The topic in the title concerns several related sciences, including history, archeology, and linguistics. It is probably rightly believed that the first two of them
From the book History of the Russians. Varangians and Russian statehood author Paramonov Sergey YakovlevichThe significance of the “Vlesovaya Book” for the cultural history of Ancient Rus' The significance of the “Vlesovaya Book” for the cultural history of Ancient Rus' is enormous. First of all, we must accept that writing among the Eastern Slavs existed long before the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet. Moreover: the Cyrillic alphabet itself
From the book Russia, Poland, Germany: history and modernity of European unity in ideology, politics and culture author Team of authorsWojciech Kriegzeisen (Warsaw) Reflections of Catherine II on the history of Ancient Rus' On the issue of the plan for the second partition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth In 1793, to commemorate the second partition of Poland, Catherine II ordered the minting of a medal with her image on one side and with a double head
From the book Complete Works. Volume 10. March-June 1905 author Lenin Vladimir Ilyich2. Brief summary of the report on the provisional revolutionary government 1. A strange formulation of the question at first glance: the implementation of the provisional revolutionary government is not so close. The question is forced upon us by literary polemics. Martynov and his reasoning up to 9.1. 1905
From the book Complete Works. Volume 15. February-June 1907 author Lenin Vladimir IlyichII. A brief summary of the actual history of the St. Petersburg split At the November (1906) conference of the RSDLP, it was unanimously decided that in the matter of elections everyone would obey the decisions of local Social-Democrats. organizations. Lenin at the same conference declares: “Let the Vyborg region (report
